what is the gap in literature review

info This is a space for the teal alert bar.

notifications This is a space for the yellow alert bar.

Research Process

• Brainstorming
• Explore Google This link opens in a new window
• Explore Web Resources
• Explore Background Information
• Explore Books
• Explore Scholarly Articles
• Narrowing a Topic
• Primary and Secondary Resources
• Academic, Popular & Trade Publications
• Scholarly and Peer-Reviewed Journals
• Grey Literature
• Clinical Trials
• Evidence Based Treatment
• Scholarly Research
• Database Research Log
• Search Limits
• Keyword Searching
• Boolean Operators
• Phrase Searching
• Truncation & Wildcard Symbols
• Proximity Searching
• Field Codes
• Subject Terms and Database Thesauri
• Reading a Scientific Article
• Website Evaluation
• Article Keywords and Subject Terms
• Cited References
• Citing Articles
• Related Results
• Search Within Publication
• Database Alerts & RSS Feeds
• Personal Database Accounts
• Persistent URLs
• Literature Gap and Future Research
• Web of Knowledge
• Annual Reviews
• Systematic Reviews & Meta-Analyses
• Finding Seminal Works
• Exhausting the Literature
• Finding Dissertations
• Researching Theoretical Frameworks
• Research Methodology & Design
• Tests and Measurements
• Organizing Research & Citations This link opens in a new window
• Picking Where to Publish
• Bibliometrics
• Learn the Library This link opens in a new window

Research Articles

These examples below illustrate how researchers from different disciplines identified gaps in existing literature. For additional examples, try a NavigatorSearch using this search string: ("Literature review") AND (gap*)

• Addressing the Recent Developments and Potential Gaps in the Literature of Corporate Sustainability
• Applications of Psychological Science to Teaching and Learning: Gaps in the Literature
• Attitudes, Risk Factors, and Behaviours of Gambling Among Adolescents and Young People: A Literature Review and Gap Analysis
• Do Psychological Diversity Climate, HRM Practices, and Personality Traits (Big Five) Influence Multicultural Workforce Job Satisfaction and Performance? Current Scenario, Literature Gap, and Future Research Directions
• Entrepreneurship Education: A Systematic Literature Review and Identification of an Existing Gap in the Field
• Evidence and Gaps in the Literature on HIV/STI Prevention Interventions Targeting Migrants in Receiving Countries: A Scoping Review
• Homeless Indigenous Veterans and the Current Gaps in Knowledge: The State of the Literature
• A Literature Review and Gap Analysis of Emerging Technologies and New Trends in Gambling
• A Review of Higher Education Image and Reputation Literature: Knowledge Gaps and a Research Agenda
• Trends and Gaps in Empirical Research on Open Educational Resources (OER): A Systematic Mapping of the Literature from 2015 to 2019
• Where Should We Go From Here? Identified Gaps in the Literature in Psychosocial Interventions for Youth With Autism Spectrum Disorder and Comorbid Anxiety

What is a ‘gap in the literature’?

The gap, also considered the missing piece or pieces in the research literature, is the area that has not yet been explored or is under-explored. This could be a population or sample (size, type, location, etc.), research method, data collection and/or analysis, or other research variables or conditions.

It is important to keep in mind, however, that just because you identify a gap in the research, it doesn't necessarily mean that your research question is worthy of exploration. You will want to make sure that your research will have valuable practical and/or theoretical implications. In other words, answering the research question could either improve existing practice and/or inform professional decision-making (Applied Degree), or it could revise, build upon, or create theoretical frameworks informing research design and practice (Ph.D Degree). See the Dissertation Center  for additional information about dissertation criteria at NU.

For a additional information on gap statements, see the following:

• How to Find a Gap in the Literature
• Write Like a Scientist: Gap Statements

How do you identify the gaps?

Conducting an exhaustive literature review is your first step. As you search for journal articles, you will need to read critically across the breadth of the literature to identify these gaps. You goal should be to find a ‘space’ or opening for contributing new research. The first step is gathering a broad range of research articles on your topic. You may want to look for research that approaches the topic from a variety of methods – qualitative, quantitative, or mixed methods. 

See the videos below for further instruction on identifying a gap in the literature.

Identifying a Gap in the Literature - Dr. Laurie Bedford

How Do You Identify Gaps in Literature? - SAGE Research Methods

Literature Gap & Future Research - Library Workshop

This workshop presents effective search techniques for identifying a gap in the literature and recommendations for future research.

Where can you locate research gaps?

As you begin to gather the literature, you will want to critically read for what has, and has not, been learned from the research. Use the Discussion and Future Research sections of the articles to understand what the researchers have found and where they point out future or additional research areas. This is similar to identifying a gap in the literature, however, future research statements come from a single study rather than an exhaustive search. You will want to check the literature to see if those research questions have already been answered.

Roadrunner Search

Identifying the gap in the research relies on an exhaustive review of the literature. Remember, researchers may not explicitly state that a gap in the literature exists; you may need to thoroughly review and assess the research to make that determination yourself.

However, there are techniques that you can use when searching in NavigatorSearch to help identify gaps in the literature. You may use search terms such as "literature gap " or "future research" "along with your subject keywords to pinpoint articles that include these types of statements.

Was this resource helpful?

• << Previous: Resources for a Literature Review
• Next: Web of Knowledge >>
• Last Updated: Aug 12, 2024 7:35 AM
• URL: https://resources.nu.edu/researchprocess

© Copyright 2024 National University. All Rights Reserved.

Privacy Policy | Consumer Information

How to find and fill gaps in the literature [Research Gaps Made Easy]

As we dive deeper into the realm of research, one term repeatedly echoes in the corridors of academia: “gap in literature.”

But what does it mean to find a gap in the literature, and why is it so crucial for your research project?

A gap in the literature refers to an area that hasn’t been studied or lacks substantial inquiry in your field of study. Identifying such gaps allows you to contribute fresh insights and innovation, thereby extending the existing body of knowledge.

It’s the cornerstone for every dissertation or research paper, setting the stage for an introduction that explicitly outlines the scope and aim of your investigation.

This gap review isn’t limited to what has been published in peer-reviewed journals; it may also include conference papers, dissertations, or technical reports, i.e., types of papers that provide an overview of ongoing research. 

This step is where your detective work comes in—by spotting trends, common methodologies, and unanswered questions, you can unearth an opportunity to explore an unexplored domain, thereby finding a research gap. 

Why Looking for Research Gaps is Essential

Looking for research gaps is essential as it enables the discovery of novel and unique contributions to a particular field.

By identifying these gaps, found through methods such as analyzing concluding remarks of recent papers, literature reviews, examining research groups’ non-peer-reviewed outputs, and utilizing specific search terms on Google Scholar, one can discern the trajectory of ongoing research and unearth opportunities for original inquiry.

These gaps highlight areas of potential innovation, unexplored paths, and disputed concepts, serving as the catalyst for valuable contributions and progression in the field. Hence, finding research gaps forms the basis of substantial and impactful scientific exploration.

Then your research can contribute by finding and filling the gap in knowledge. 

Method 1: Utilizing Concluding Remarks of Recent Research

When embarking on a quest to find research gaps, the concluding remarks of recent research papers can serve as an unexpected treasure map.

This section of a paper often contains insightful comments on the limitations of the work and speculates on future research directions.

These comments, although not directly pointing to a research gap, can hint at where the research is heading and what areas require further exploration.

Consider these remarks as signposts, pointing you towards uncharted territories in your field of interest.

For example, you may come across a conclusion in a recent paper on artificial intelligence that indicates a need for more research on ethical considerations. This gives you a direction to explore – the ethical implications of AI. 

However, it’s important to bear in mind that while these statements provide valuable leads, they aren’t definitive indicators of research gaps. They provide a starting point, a clue to the vast research puzzle.

Your task is to take these hints, explore further, and discern the most promising areas for your investigation. It’s a bit like being a detective, except your clues come from scholarly papers instead of crime scenes!

Method 2: Examining Research Groups and Non-peer Reviewed Outputs

If concluding remarks are signposts to potential research gaps, non-peer reviewed outputs such as preprints, conference presentations, and dissertations are detailed maps guiding you towards the frontier of research.

These resources reflect the real-time development in the field, giving you a sense of the “buzz” that surrounds hot topics.

These materials, presented but not formally published, offer a sneak peek into ongoing studies, providing you with a rich source of information to identify emerging trends and potential research gaps.

For instance, a presentation on the impact of climate change on mental health might reveal a new line of research that’s in its early stages.

One word of caution: while these resources can be enlightening, they have not undergone the rigorous peer review process that published articles have.

This means the quality of research may vary and the findings should be interpreted with a critical eye. Remember, the key is to pinpoint where the research is heading and then carve out your niche within that sphere.

Exploring non-peer reviewed outputs allows you to stay ahead of the curve, harnessing the opportunity to investigate and contribute to a burgeoning area of study before it becomes mainstream.

Method 3: Searching for ‘Promising’ and ‘Preliminary’ Results on Google Scholar

With a plethora of research at your fingertips, Google Scholar can serve as a remarkable tool in your quest to discover research gaps. The magic lies in a simple trick: search for the phrases “promising results” or “preliminary results” within your research area. Why these specific phrases? Scientists often use them when they have encouraging but not yet fully verified findings.

To illustrate, consider an example. Type “promising results and solar cell” into Google Scholar, and filter by recent publications.

The search results will show you recent studies where researchers have achieved promising outcomes but may not have fully developed their ideas or resolved all challenges.

These “promising” or “preliminary” results often represent areas ripe for further exploration.

They hint at a research question that has been opened but not fully answered. However, tread carefully.

While these findings can indeed point to potential research gaps, they can also lead to dead ends. It’s crucial to examine these leads with a critical eye and further corroborate them with a comprehensive review of related research.

Nevertheless, this approach provides a simple, effective starting point for identifying research gaps, serving as a launchpad for your explorations.

Method 4: Reading Around the Subject

Comprehensive reading forms the bedrock of effective research. When hunting for research gaps, you need to move beyond just the preliminary findings and delve deeper into the context surrounding these results.

This involves broadening your view and reading extensively around your topic of interest.

In the course of your reading, you will start identifying common themes, reoccurring questions, and shared challenges in the research.

Over time, patterns will emerge, helping you recognize areas where research is thin or missing.

For instance, in studying autonomous vehicles, you might find recurring questions about regulatory frameworks, pointing to a potential gap in the legal aspects of this technology.

However, this method is not about scanning through a huge volume of literature aimlessly. It involves strategic and critical reading, looking for patterns, inconsistencies, and areas where the existing literature falls short.

It’s akin to painting a picture where some parts are vividly detailed while others remain sketchy. Your goal is to identify these sketchy areas and fill in the details.

So grab your academic reading list, and start diving into the ocean of knowledge. Remember, it’s not just about the depth, but also the breadth of your reading, that will lead you to a meaningful research gap.

Method 5: Consulting with Current Researchers

Few methods are as effective in uncovering research gaps as engaging in conversations with active researchers in your field of interest.

Current researchers, whether they are PhD students, postdoctoral researchers, or supervisors, are often deeply engaged in ongoing studies and understand the current challenges in their respective fields.

Start by expressing genuine interest in their work. Rather than directly asking for research gaps, inquire about the challenges they are currently facing in their projects.

You can ask, “What are the current challenges in your research?”

Their responses can highlight potential areas of exploration, setting you on the path to identifying meaningful research gaps.

Moreover, supervisors, particularly those overseeing PhD and Master’s students, often have ideas for potential research topics. By asking the right questions, you can tap into their wealth of knowledge and identify fruitful areas of study.

While the act of discovering research gaps can feel like a solitary journey, it doesn’t have to be.

Engaging with others who are grappling with similar challenges can provide valuable insights and guide your path. After all, the world of research thrives on collaboration and shared intellectual curiosity.

Method 6: Utilizing Online Tools

The digital age has made uncovering research gaps easier, thanks to a plethora of online tools that help visualize the interconnectedness of research literature.

Platforms such as:

• Connected Papers,
• ResearchRabbit, and

allow you to see how different papers in your field relate to one another, thereby creating a web of knowledge.

Upon creating this visual web, you may notice that many papers point towards a certain area, but then abruptly stop. This could indicate a potential research gap, suggesting that the topic hasn’t been adequately addressed or has been sidelined for some reason.

By further reading around this apparent gap, you can understand if it’s a genuine knowledge deficit or merely a research path that was abandoned due to inherent challenges or a dead end.

These online tools provide a bird’s eye view of the literature, helping you understand the broader landscape of research in your area of interest.

By examining patterns and relationships among studies, you can effectively zero in on unexplored areas, making these tools a valuable asset in your quest for research gaps.

Method 7: Seeking Conflicting Ideas in the Literature

In scientific research, areas of conflict can often be fertile ground for finding research gaps. These are areas where there’s a considerable amount of disagreement or ongoing debate among researchers.

If you can bring a fresh perspective, a new technique, or a novel hypothesis to such a contentious issue, you may well be on your way to uncovering a significant research gap.

Take, for instance, an area in psychology where there is a heated debate about the influence of nature versus nurture.

If you can introduce a new dimension to the debate or a method to test a novel hypothesis, you could potentially fill a significant gap in the literature.

Investigating areas of conflict not only opens avenues for exploring research gaps, but it also provides opportunities for you to make substantial contributions to your field. The key is to be able to see the potential for a new angle and to muster the courage to dive into contentious waters.

However, engaging with conflicts in research requires careful navigation.

Striking the right balance between acknowledging existing research and championing new ideas is crucial.

In the end, resolving these conflicts or adding significant depth to the debate can be incredibly rewarding and contribute greatly to your field.

The Right Perspective Towards Research Gaps

The traditional understanding of research gaps often involves seeking out a ‘bubble’ of missing knowledge in the sea of existing research, a niche yet to be explored. However, in today’s fast-paced research environment, these bubbles are becoming increasingly rare.

The paradigm of finding research gaps is shifting. It’s no longer just about seeking out holes in existing knowledge, but about understanding the leading edge of research and the directions it could take. It involves not just filling in the gaps but extending the boundaries of knowledge.

To identify such opportunities, develop a comprehensive understanding of the research landscape, identify emerging trends, and keep a close eye on recent advancements.

Look for the tendrils of knowledge extending out into the unknown and think about how you can push them further. It might be a challenging task, but it offers the potential for making substantial, impactful contributions to your field. 

Remember, every great innovation begins at the edge of what is known. That’s where your research gap might be hiding.

Wrapping up – Literature and research gaps

Finding and filling a gap in the literature is a task crucial to every research project. It begins with a systematic review of existing literature – a quest to identify what has been studied and more importantly, what hasn’t.

You must delve into the rich terrain of literature in their field, from the seminal, citation-heavy research articles to the fresh perspective of conference papers. Identifying the gap in the literature necessitates a thorough evaluation of existing studies to refine your area of interest and map the scope and aim of your future research.

The purpose is to explicitly identify the gap that exists, so you can contribute to the body of knowledge by providing fresh insights. The process involves a series of steps, from consulting with faculty and experts in the field to identify potential trends and outdated methodologies, to being methodological in your approach to identify gaps that have emerged.

Upon finding a gap in the literature, we’ll ideally have a clearer picture of the research need and an opportunity to explore this unexplored domain.

It is important to remember that the task does not end with identifying the gap. The real challenge lies in drafting a research proposal that’s objective, answerable, and can quantify the impact of filling this gap. 

It’s important to consult with your advisor, and also look at commonly used parameters and preliminary evidence. Only then can we complete the task of turning an identified gap in the literature into a valuable contribution to your field, a contribution that’s peer-reviewed and adds to the body of knowledge.

To find a research gap is to stand on the shoulders of giants, looking beyond the existing research to further expand our understanding of the world.

Dr Andrew Stapleton has a Masters and PhD in Chemistry from the UK and Australia. He has many years of research experience and has worked as a Postdoctoral Fellow and Associate at a number of Universities. Although having secured funding for his own research, he left academia to help others with his YouTube channel all about the inner workings of academia and how to make it work for you.

Thank you for visiting Academia Insider.

We are here to help you navigate Academia as painlessly as possible. We are supported by our readers and by visiting you are helping us earn a small amount through ads and affiliate revenue - Thank you!

2024 © Academia Insider

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 September 3, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/dissertation/literature-review/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

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

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

An official website of the United States government

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

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

• Publications
• Account settings

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

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Perspect Med Educ
• v.7(1); 2018 Feb

Writing an effective literature review

Lorelei lingard.

Schulich School of Medicine & Dentistry, Health Sciences Addition, Western University, London, Ontario Canada

In the Writer’s Craft section we offer simple tips to improve your writing in one of three areas: Energy, Clarity and Persuasiveness. Each entry focuses on a key writing feature or strategy, illustrates how it commonly goes wrong, teaches the grammatical underpinnings necessary to understand it and offers suggestions to wield it effectively. We encourage readers to share comments on or suggestions for this section on Twitter, using the hashtag: #how’syourwriting?

This Writer’s Craft instalment is the first in a two-part series that offers strategies for effectively presenting the literature review section of a research manuscript. This piece alerts writers to the importance of not only summarizing what is known but also identifying precisely what is not, in order to explicitly signal the relevance of their research. In this instalment, I will introduce readers to the mapping the gap metaphor, the knowledge claims heuristic, and the need to characterize the gap.

Mapping the gap

The purpose of the literature review section of a manuscript is not to report what is known about your topic. The purpose is to identify what remains unknown— what academic writing scholar Janet Giltrow has called the ‘knowledge deficit’ — thus establishing the need for your research study [ 1 ]. In an earlier Writer’s Craft instalment, the Problem-Gap-Hook heuristic was introduced as a way of opening your paper with a clear statement of the problem that your work grapples with, the gap in our current knowledge about that problem, and the reason the gap matters [ 2 ]. This article explains how to use the literature review section of your paper to build and characterize the Gap claim in your Problem-Gap-Hook. The metaphor of ‘mapping the gap’ is a way of thinking about how to select and arrange your review of the existing literature so that readers can recognize why your research needed to be done, and why its results constitute a meaningful advance on what was already known about the topic.

Many writers have learned that the literature review should describe what is known. The trouble with this approach is that it can produce a laundry list of facts-in-the-world that does not persuade the reader that the current study is a necessary next step. Instead, think of your literature review as painting in a map of your research domain: as you review existing knowledge, you are painting in sections of the map, but your goal is not to end with the whole map fully painted. That would mean there is nothing more we need to know about the topic, and that leaves no room for your research. What you want to end up with is a map in which painted sections surround and emphasize a white space, a gap in what is known that matters. Conceptualizing your literature review this way helps to ensure that it achieves its dual goal: of presenting what is known and pointing out what is not—the latter of these goals is necessary for your literature review to establish the necessity and importance of the research you are about to describe in the methods section which will immediately follow the literature review.

To a novice researcher or graduate student, this may seem counterintuitive. Hopefully you have invested significant time in reading the existing literature, and you are understandably keen to demonstrate that you’ve read everything ever published about your topic! Be careful, though, not to use the literature review section to regurgitate all of your reading in manuscript form. For one thing, it creates a laundry list of facts that makes for horrible reading. But there are three other reasons for avoiding this approach. First, you don’t have the space. In published medical education research papers, the literature review is quite short, ranging from a few paragraphs to a few pages, so you can’t summarize everything you’ve read. Second, you’re preaching to the converted. If you approach your paper as a contribution to an ongoing scholarly conversation,[ 2 ] then your literature review should summarize just the aspects of that conversation that are required to situate your conversational turn as informed and relevant. Third, the key to relevance is to point to a gap in what is known. To do so, you summarize what is known for the express purpose of identifying what is not known . Seen this way, the literature review should exert a gravitational pull on the reader, leading them inexorably to the white space on the map of knowledge you’ve painted for them. That white space is the space that your research fills.

Knowledge claims

To help writers move beyond the laundry list, the notion of ‘knowledge claims’ can be useful. A knowledge claim is a way of presenting the growing understanding of the community of researchers who have been exploring your topic. These are not disembodied facts, but rather incremental insights that some in the field may agree with and some may not, depending on their different methodological and disciplinary approaches to the topic. Treating the literature review as a story of the knowledge claims being made by researchers in the field can help writers with one of the most sophisticated aspects of a literature review—locating the knowledge being reviewed. Where does it come from? What is debated? How do different methodologies influence the knowledge being accumulated? And so on.

Consider this example of the knowledge claims (KC), Gap and Hook for the literature review section of a research paper on distributed healthcare teamwork:

KC: We know that poor team communication can cause errors. KC: And we know that team training can be effective in improving team communication. KC: This knowledge has prompted a push to incorporate teamwork training principles into health professions education curricula. KC: However, most of what we know about team training research has come from research with co-located teams—i. e., teams whose members work together in time and space. Gap: Little is known about how teamwork training principles would apply in distributed teams, whose members work asynchronously and are spread across different locations. Hook: Given that much healthcare teamwork is distributed rather than co-located, our curricula will be severely lacking until we create refined teamwork training principles that reflect distributed as well as co-located work contexts.

The ‘We know that …’ structure illustrated in this example is a template for helping you draft and organize. In your final version, your knowledge claims will be expressed with more sophistication. For instance, ‘We know that poor team communication can cause errors’ will become something like ‘Over a decade of patient safety research has demonstrated that poor team communication is the dominant cause of medical errors.’ This simple template of knowledge claims, though, provides an outline for the paragraphs in your literature review, each of which will provide detailed evidence to illustrate a knowledge claim. Using this approach, the order of the paragraphs in the literature review is strategic and persuasive, leading the reader to the gap claim that positions the relevance of the current study. To expand your vocabulary for creating such knowledge claims, linking them logically and positioning yourself amid them, I highly recommend Graff and Birkenstein’s little handbook of ‘templates’ [ 3 ].

As you organize your knowledge claims, you will also want to consider whether you are trying to map the gap in a well-studied field, or a relatively understudied one. The rhetorical challenge is different in each case. In a well-studied field, like professionalism in medical education, you must make a strong, explicit case for the existence of a gap. Readers may come to your paper tired of hearing about this topic and tempted to think we can’t possibly need more knowledge about it. Listing the knowledge claims can help you organize them most effectively and determine which pieces of knowledge may be unnecessary to map the white space your research attempts to fill. This does not mean that you leave out relevant information: your literature review must still be accurate. But, since you will not be able to include everything, selecting carefully among the possible knowledge claims is essential to producing a coherent, well-argued literature review.

Characterizing the gap

Once you’ve identified the gap, your literature review must characterize it. What kind of gap have you found? There are many ways to characterize a gap, but some of the more common include:

• a pure knowledge deficit—‘no one has looked at the relationship between longitudinal integrated clerkships and medical student abuse’
• a shortcoming in the scholarship, often due to philosophical or methodological tendencies and oversights—‘scholars have interpreted x from a cognitivist perspective, but ignored the humanist perspective’ or ‘to date, we have surveyed the frequency of medical errors committed by residents, but we have not explored their subjective experience of such errors’
• a controversy—‘scholars disagree on the definition of professionalism in medicine …’
• a pervasive and unproven assumption—‘the theme of technological heroism—technology will solve what ails teamwork—is ubiquitous in the literature, but what is that belief based on?’

To characterize the kind of gap, you need to know the literature thoroughly. That means more than understanding each paper individually; you also need to be placing each paper in relation to others. This may require changing your note-taking technique while you’re reading; take notes on what each paper contributes to knowledge, but also on how it relates to other papers you’ve read, and what it suggests about the kind of gap that is emerging.

In summary, think of your literature review as mapping the gap rather than simply summarizing the known. And pay attention to characterizing the kind of gap you’ve mapped. This strategy can help to make your literature review into a compelling argument rather than a list of facts. It can remind you of the danger of describing so fully what is known that the reader is left with the sense that there is no pressing need to know more. And it can help you to establish a coherence between the kind of gap you’ve identified and the study methodology you will use to fill it.

Acknowledgements

Thanks to Mark Goldszmidt for his feedback on an early version of this manuscript.

PhD, is director of the Centre for Education Research & Innovation at Schulich School of Medicine & Dentistry, and professor for the Department of Medicine at Western University in London, Ontario, Canada.

Have a language expert improve your writing

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

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

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

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

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

There are five key steps to writing a literature review:

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

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

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

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

Table of contents

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

• Quick Run-through
• Step 1 & 2

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

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

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

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

The only proofreading tool specialized in correcting academic writing

The academic proofreading tool has been trained on 1000s of academic texts and by native English editors. Making it the most accurate and reliable proofreading tool for students.

Correct my document today

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

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

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

Download Word doc Download Google doc

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

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

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

Make a list of keywords

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

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

Search for relevant sources

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

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

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

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

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

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

For each publication, ask yourself:

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

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

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

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

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

Take notes and cite your sources

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

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

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

Prevent plagiarism, run a free check.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chronological

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

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

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

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

Methodological

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

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

Theoretical

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

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

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

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

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

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

As you write, make sure to follow these tips:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cite this Scribbr article

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

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

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

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

Research to Action

The Global Guide to Research Impact

Social Media

Framing challenges

Gap analysis for literature reviews and advancing useful knowledge

By Steve Wallis and Bernadette Wright 02/06/2020

The basics of research are seemingly clear. Read a lot of articles, see what’s missing, and conduct research to fill the gap in the literature. Wait a minute. What is that? ‘See what’s missing?’ How can we see something that is not there?

Imagine you are videoconferencing a colleague who is showing you the results of their project. Suddenly, the screen and sound cut out for a minute. After pressing some keys, you manage to restore the link; only to have your colleague ask, ‘What do you think?’. Of course, you know that you missed something from the presentation because of the disconnection. You can see that something is missing, and you know what to ask for to get your desired results, ‘Sorry, could you repeat that last minute of your presentation, please’. It’s not so easy when we’re looking at research results, proposals, or literature reviews.

While all research is, to some extent, useful, we’ve seen a lot of research that does not have the expected impact. That means wasted time, wasted money, under-served clients, and frustration on multiple levels. A big part of that problem is that directions for research are often chosen intuitively; in a sort of ad-hoc process. While we deeply respect the intuition of experts, that kind of process is not very rigorous.

In this post, we will show you how to ‘see the invisible’: How to identify the missing pieces in any study, literature review, or program analysis. With these straight-forward techniques, you will be able to better target your research in a more cost-effective way to fill those knowledge gaps to develop more effective theories, plans, and evaluations.

The first step is to choose your source material. That can be one or more articles, reports, or other study results. Of course, you want to be sure that the material you use is of high quality . Next, you want to create a causal map of your source material.

We’re going to go a bit abstract on you here because people sometimes get lost in the ‘content’ when what we are looking at here is more about the ‘structure’. Think of it like choosing how to buy a house based on how well it is built, rather than what color it is painted. So, instead of using actual concepts, we’ll refer to them as concepts A, B, C… and so on.

So, the text might say something like: ‘Our research shows that A causes B, B causes C, and D causes less C. Oh yes, and E is also important (although we’re not sure how it’s causally connected to A, B, C, or D)’.

When we draw causal maps from the source material we’ve found, we like to have key concepts in circles, with causal connections represented by arrows.

Figure 1. Abstract example of a causal map of a theory

There are really three basic kinds of gaps for you to find: relevance/meaning, logic/structure, and data/evidence. Starting with structure, there is a gap any place where there are two circles NOT connected by a causal arrow. It is important to have at least two arrows pointing at each concept/circle for the same reason we like to have multiple independent variables for each dependent variable (although, with more complex maps, we’re learning to see these as interdependent variables).

For example, there is no arrow between A and D. Also, there is no arrow between E and any of the other concepts. Each of those is a structural gap – an opening for additional research.

You might also notice that there are two arrows pointing directly at C. Like having two independent variables and one dependent variable, it is structurally better to have at least two arrows pointing at each concept.

So, structurally , C is in good shape. This part of the map has the least need for additional research. A larger gap exists around B, because it has only one arrow pointing at it (the arrow from A to B). Larger still is the gap around A, D, and E; because they have no arrows pointing at them.

To get the greatest leverage for your research dollar, it is generally best to search for that second arrow. In short, one research question would be: What (aside from A) has a causal influence on B? Other good research questions would be (a) Is there a causal relationship between A and D? (b) Is there a causal relationship between E and any of the other concepts? (c) What else besides A helps cause B? (d) What are the causes of A, D, and E?

Now, let’s take a look at gaps in the data, evidence, or information upon which each causal arrow is established.

From structure to data

Here, we add to the drawing by making a note showing (very briefly) the kind of data supporting each causal arrow. We like to have that in a box – with a loopy line ‘typing’ the evidence to the connection. You can also use different colors to more easily differentiate between the concepts and the evidence on your map. You can also write the note along the length of the arrow.

Figure 2. Tying the data to the structure

From data to stakeholder relevance

Finally, the gap in meaning (relevance) asks if those studies were done with the ‘right’ people. By this, we mean people related to the situation or topic you are studying. Managers, line workers, clients, suppliers, those providing related services; all of those and more should be included. Similarly, you might look to a variety of academic disciplines, drawing expertise from psychology, sociology, business, economics, policy, and others.

Which participants or stakeholders are actually part of your research depends on the project. However, in general, having a broader selection of stakeholder groups results in a better map. This applies to both choosing what concepts go on the map and also who to contact for interviews and surveys.

Visualizing the gaps

All of these three gaps – gaps in structure, data, and stakeholder perspectives – can (and should) be addressed to help you choose more focused directions for your research – to generate research results that will have more impact. As a final note, remember that many gaps may be filled with secondary research; a new literature review that fills the gaps in the logic/structure, data/information, and meaning/relevance of your map so that your organisation can have a greater impact.

Figure 3. Visualizing the gaps (shown in green)

Some deeper reading on literature reviews may be found here:

• Practical Mapping for Applied Research and Program Evaluation (SAGE) provides a ‘jargon free’ explanation for every phase of research:

https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/practical-mapping-for-applied-research-and-program-evaluation/book261152   (especially Chapter 3)

• This paper uses theories for addressing poverty from a range of academic disciplines and from policy centers from across the political spectrum as an example of interdisciplinary knowledge mapping and synthesis:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/K-03-2018-0136/full/html

• Restructuring evaluation findings into useful knowledge:

http://journals.sfu.ca/jmde/index.php/jmde_1/article/download/481/436/

This approach helps you to avoid fuzzy understandings and the dangerous ‘pretence of knowledge’ that occasionally crops up in some reports and recommendations. Everyone can see that a piece is missing and so more easily agree where more research is needed to advance our knowledge to better serve our organisational and community constituents.

Contribute Write a blog post, post a job or event, recommend a resource

Partner with Us Are you an institution looking to increase your impact?

Most Recent Posts

• Don’t wait for ‘big funding’ to tackle the climate crisis
• Africa’s use of evidence: challenges and opportunities
• Five ways to improve policy engagement
• Youth-focused initiatives: SheDecides.
• Monitoring and Evaluation tools for Advocacy and Influencing

As part of our new Youth Inclusion and Engagement Space we are profiling some of the initiatives having real impact in this area. First up it's @GAGEprogramme... Gender and Adolescence: Global Evidence (GAGE) is a groundbreaking ten-year research initiative led by the Overseas Development Institute (ODI). From 2015 to 2025, GAGE is following the lives of 20,000 adolescents across six low- and middle-income countries in Africa, Asia, and the Middle East, generating the world’s largest dataset on adolescence. GAGE’s mission is clear: to identify effective strategies that help adolescent boys and girls break free from poverty, with a strong focus on the most vulnerable, in line with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). By understanding how gender norms influence young people’s lives, GAGE provides invaluable insights to inform policies and programs at every level. The program has already made significant impacts. GAGE evidence was instrumental in shaping Ethiopia's first National Plan on Adolescent and Sexual Reproductive Health and enhancing UNICEF’s Jordan Hajati Cash for Education program. Beyond policy change, GAGE elevates youth voices through their podcast series, exploring topics like civic engagement, activism, and leadership. In crisis contexts like Gaza, GAGE advocates for the inclusion of adolescents in peace processes, addressing the severe mental health challenges and social isolation faced by young people, particularly girls. GAGE also fosters skill development and research opportunities for youth, encouraging young researchers to publish their work. Impressively, around half of GAGE’s outputs have co-authors from the Global South. 👉 Learn more about GAGE’s impactful work by following the Youth Inclusion link on our Linktree. 🔗🔗

The latest #R2AImpactPractitioners post features an article by Karen Bell and Mark Reed on the Tree of Participation (ToP) model, a groundbreaking framework designed to enhance inclusive decision-making. By identifying 12 key factors and 7 contextual elements, ToP empowers marginalized groups and ensures processes that are inclusive, accountable, and balanced in power dynamics. The model uses a tree metaphor to illustrate its phases: roots (pre-process), branches (process), and leaves (post-process), all interconnected within their context. Discover more by following the #R2Aimpactpractitioners link in our linktree 👉🔗

Do you use AI in your work? AI is increasingly present in all our lives, but how can we use it effectively to enhance research practice? Earlier this year Inés Arangüena explored this question in a two part series. Follow the link in our bio to read more. https://ow.ly/IV0R50SH5tI #AI

Research To Action (R2A) is a learning platform for anyone interested in maximising the impact of research and capturing evidence of impact.

The site publishes practical resources on a range of topics including research uptake, communications, policy influence and monitoring and evaluation. It captures the experiences of practitioners and researchers working on these topics and facilitates conversations between this global community through a range of social media platforms.

R2A is produced by a small editorial team, led by CommsConsult . We welcome suggestions for and contributions to the site.

Subscribe to our newsletter!

Our contributors

Browse all authors

Friends and partners

• Global Development Network (GDN)
• Institute of Development Studies (IDS)
• International Initiative for Impact Evaluation (3ie)
• On Think Tanks
• Politics & Ideas
• Research for Development (R4D)
• Research Impact

Welcome to the new OASIS website! We have academic skills, library skills, math and statistics support, and writing resources all together in one new home.

• Walden University
• Faculty Portal

Library Guide to Capstone Literature Reviews: Find a Research Gap

Find a research gap: tips to get started.

Finding a research gap is not an easy process and there is no one linear path. These tips and suggestions are just examples of possible ways to begin. 

In Ph.D. dissertations, students identify a gap in research. In other programs, students identify a gap in practice. The literature review for a gap in practice will show the context of the problem and the current state of the research. 

Research gap definition

A research gap exists when:

• a question or problem has not been answered by existing studies/research in the field 
• a concept or new idea has not been studied at all
• all the existing literature on a topic is outdated 
• a specific population/location/age group etc has not been studied 

A research gap should be:

• grounded in the literature
• amenable to scientific study
• Litmus Test for a Doctoral-Level Research Problem (Word) This tool helps students determine if they have identified a doctoral level research problem.

Identify a research gap

To find a gap you must become very familiar with a particular field of study. This will involve a lot of research and reading, because a gap is defined by what does (and does not) surround it.

• Search the research literature and dissertations (search all university dissertations, not just Walden!).
• Understand your topic! Review background information in books and encyclopedias . 
• Look for literature reviews, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses.
• Take notes on concepts, themes, and subject terms . 
• Look closely at each article's limitations, conclusions, and recommendations for future research. 
• Organize, analyze, and repeat! 

• Quick Answer: How do I find dissertations on a topic?

Start with broad searches

Use the Library Search (formerly Thoreau)  to do a broad search with just one concept at a time . Broad searches give you an idea of the academic conversation surrounding your topic.

• Try the terms you know (keywords) first.
• Look at the Subject Terms (controlled language) to brainstorm terms. 
• Subject terms help you understand what terms are most used, and what other terms to try.
• No matter what your topic is, not every researcher will be using the same terms. Keep an eye open for additional ways to describe your topic.
• Guide: Subject Terms & Index Searches: Index Overview

Keep a list of terms

• Create a list of terms
• Example list of terms

This list will be a record of what terms are: 

• related to or represent your topic
• synonyms or antonyms
• more or less commonly used
• keywords (natural language) or subject terms (controlled language)
• Synonyms & antonyms (database search skills)
• Turn keywords into subject terms

Term I started with:

culturally aware 

Subject terms I discovered:

cultural awareness (SU) 

cultural sensitivity (SU) 

cultural competence (SU) 

Search with different combinations of terms

• Combine search terms list
• Combine search terms table
• Video: Search by Themes

Since a research gap is defined by the absence of research on a topic, you will search for articles on everything that relates to your topic. 

• List out all the themes related to your gap.
• Search different combinations of the themes as you discover them 

For example, suppose your research gap is on the work-life balance of tenured and tenure-track women in engineering professions. In that case, you might try searching different combinations of concepts, such as: 

• women and STEM 
• STEM or science or technology or engineering or mathematics
• female engineering professors 
• tenure-track women in STEM
• work-life balance and women in STEM
• work-life balance and women professors
• work-life balance and tenure 

Topic adapted from one of the award winning Walden dissertations. 

• Walden University Award Winning Dissertations
• Gossage, Lily Giang-Tien, "Work-Life Balance of Tenured and Tenure-Track Women Engineering Professors" (2019). Walden Dissertations and Doctoral Studies. 6435.

Break your topic into themes and try combining the terms from different themes in different ways. For example: 

Theme 1 and Theme 4

Theme 2 and Theme 1

Theme 3 and Theme 4

Video: Search by Themes (YouTube)

(2 min 40 sec) Recorded April 2014 Transcript

Track where more research is needed

Most research articles will identify where more research is needed. To identify research trends, use the literature review matrix to track where further research is needed. 

• Download or create your own Literature Review Matrix (examples in links below).
• Do some general database searches on broad topics.
• Find an article that looks interesting.
• When you read the article, pay attention to the conclusions and limitations sections.
• Use the Literature Review Matrix to track where  'more research is needed' or 'further research needed'. NOTE:  you might need to add a column to the template.
• As you fill in the matrix you should see trends where more research is needed.

There is no consistent section in research articles where the authors identify where more research is needed. Pay attention to these sections: 

• limitations
• conclusions
• recommendations for future research 
• Literature Review Matrix Templates: learn how to keep a record of what you have read
• Literature Review Matrix (Excel) with color coding Sample template for organizing and synthesizing your research
• Previous Page: Scope
• Next Page: Get & Stay Organized
• Office of Student Disability Services

Walden Resources

Departments.

• Academic Residencies
• Academic Skills
• Career Planning and Development
• Customer Care Team
• Field Experience
• Military Services
• Student Success Advising
• Writing Skills

Centers and Offices

• Center for Social Change
• Office of Academic Support and Instructional Services
• Office of Degree Acceleration
• Office of Research and Doctoral Services
• Office of Student Affairs

Student Resources

• Doctoral Writing Assessment
• Form & Style Review
• Quick Answers
• ScholarWorks
• SKIL Courses and Workshops
• Walden Bookstore
• Walden Catalog & Student Handbook
• Student Safety/Title IX
• Legal & Consumer Information
• Website Terms and Conditions
• Cookie Policy
• Accessibility
• Accreditation
• State Authorization
• Net Price Calculator
• Cost of Attendance
• Contact Walden

Walden University is a member of Adtalem Global Education, Inc. www.adtalem.com Walden University is certified to operate by SCHEV © 2024 Walden University LLC. All rights reserved.

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: .

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

Frequently asked questions 

What is a literature review .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Literature review example 

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

Literature Review on Climate Change Impacts on Biodiversity:  

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

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

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

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

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

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

How to write a good literature review 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conducting a literature review 

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

Choose a Topic and Define the Research Question:  

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

Decide on the Scope of Your Review:  

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

Select Databases for Searches:  

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

Conduct Searches and Keep Track:  

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

Review the Literature:  

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

Organize and Write Your Literature Review:  

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

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

How to write a literature review faster with Paperpal?  

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

Here’s how to use the Research feature:  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References 

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

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

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

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

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, academic integrity vs academic dishonesty: types & examples, dissertation printing and binding | types & comparison , what is a dissertation preface definition and examples , the ai revolution: authors’ role in upholding academic..., the future of academia: how ai tools are..., how to write a research proposal: (with examples..., how to write your research paper in apa..., how to choose a dissertation topic, how to write a phd research proposal, how to write an academic paragraph (step-by-step guide).

•   [email protected]
• Shapiro Library
• SNHU Library Frequently Asked Questions

FAQ: What is a research gap and how do I find one?

• 7 Academic Integrity & Plagiarism
• 61 Academic Support, Writing Help, & Presentation Help
• 28 Access/Remote Access
• 7 Accessibility
• 8 Building/Facilities
• 6 Career/Job Information
• 25 Catalog/Print Books
• 25 Circulation
• 134 Citing Sources
• 14 Copyright
• 306 Databases
• 23 Directions/Location
• 19 Faculty Resources/Needs
• 7 Hours/Contacts
• 2 Innovation Lab & Makerspace/3D Printing
• 25 Interlibrary Loan
• 43 IT/Computer/Printing Support
• 3 Library Instruction
• 37 Library Technology Help
• 6 Multimedia
• 16 Online Programs
• 20 Periodicals
• 24 Policies
• 8 RefWorks/Citation Managers
• 4 Research Guides (LibGuides)
• 213 Research Help
• 22 University Services

Last Updated: Aug 26, 2024 Views: 494192

What is a research gap.

A research gap is a question or a problem that has not been answered by any of the existing studies or research within your field. Sometimes, a research gap exists when there is a concept or new idea that hasn't been studied at all. Sometimes you'll find a research gap if all the existing research is outdated and in need of new/updated research (studies on Internet use in 2001, for example). Or, perhaps a specific population has not been well studied (perhaps there are plenty of studies on teenagers and video games, but not enough studies on toddlers and video games, for example). These are just a few examples, but any research gap you find is an area where more studies and more research need to be conducted. Please view this video clip from our Sage Research Methods database for more helpful information: How Do You Identify Gaps in Literature?

How do I find one?

It will take a lot of research and reading.  You'll need to be very familiar with all the studies that have already been done, and what those studies contributed to the overall body of knowledge about that topic. Make a list of any questions you have about your topic and then do some research to see if those questions have already been answered satisfactorily. If they haven't, perhaps you've discovered a gap!  Here are some strategies you can use to make the most of your time:

• One useful trick is to look at the “suggestions for future research” or conclusion section of existing studies on your topic. Many times, the authors will identify areas where they think a research gap exists, and what studies they think need to be done in the future.
• As you are researching, you will most likely come across citations for seminal works in your research field. These are the research studies that you see mentioned again and again in the literature.  In addition to finding those and reading them, you can use a database like Web of Science to follow the research trail and discover all the other articles that have cited these. See the FAQ: I found the perfect article for my paper. How do I find other articles and books that have cited it? on how to do this. One way to quickly track down these seminal works is to use a database like SAGE Navigator, a social sciences literature review tool. It is one of the products available via our SAGE Knowledge database.
• In the PsycINFO and PsycARTICLES databases, you can select literature review, systematic review, and meta analysis under the Methodology section in the advanced search to quickly locate these. See the FAQ: Where can I find a qualitative or quantitative study? for more information on how to find the Methodology section in these two databases.
• In CINAHL , you can select Systematic review under the Publication Type field in the advanced search. 
• In Web of Science , check the box beside Review under the Document Type heading in the “Refine Results” sidebar to the right of the list of search hits.
• If the database you are searching does not offer a way to filter your results by document type, publication type, or methodology in the advanced search, you can include these phrases (“literature reviews,” meta-analyses, or “systematic reviews”) in your search string.  For example, “video games” AND “literature reviews” could be a possible search that you could try.

Please give these suggestions a try and contact a librarian for additional assistance.

Content authored by: GS

• Share on Facebook

Was this helpful? Yes 398 No 155

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) are a self-serve option for users to search and find answers to their questions. 

Use the search box above to type your question to search for an answer or browse existing FAQs by group, topic, etc.

Tell Me More

Link to Question Form

More assistance.

Submit a Question

Related FAQs

UNE Library Services

Research Help

Gaps in the literature.

Gaps in the literature are missing pieces or insufficient information in the published research on a topic. These are areas that have opportunities for further research because they are unexplored, under-explored, or outdated. 

Finding Gaps

Gaps can be missing or incomplete:

• Population or sample: size, type, location etc…
• Research methods: qualitative, quantitative, or mixed
• Data collection or analysis
• Research variables or conditions

Conduct a thorough literature search to find a broad range of research articles on your topic. Search research databases ;  you can find recommended databases for your subject area in  research by subject  for your course or program.

Identifying Gaps

If you do not find articles in your literature search, this may indicate a gap.

If you do find articles, the goal is to find a gap for contributing new research. Authors signal that there is a gap using phrases such as:

• Has not been clarified, studied, reported, or elucidated
• Further research is required or needed
• Is not well reported
• Suggestions for further research
• Key question is or remains
• It is important to address
• Poorly understood or known
• Lack of studies
• These findings provide valuable insights into the potential benefits of mindfulness-based interventions for stress management,however, further study is needed to address several limitations and extend our understanding in this area .
• While this study provides preliminary evidence of the potential efficacy of VRET in reducing PTSD symptoms, several aspects related to its implementation and specific treatment outcomes  remain inadequately clarified, highlighting the need for further research .
• Although the studies reviewed provide valuable insights into the potential effects of climate change on species composition and ecosystem functioning.  The question of how climate change will interact with other anthropogenic stressors to influence the resilience and adaptive capacity of tropical rainforest ecosystems remains unanswered, highlighting the need for further research .

Questions & Help

If you have questions on this, or another, topic, contact a librarian for help!

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

How To Write An A-Grade Literature Review

3 straightforward steps (with examples) + free template.

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

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

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

Overview: The Literature Review Process

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

But first, the “why”…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Step 1: Find the relevant literature

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

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

Method 1 – Google Scholar Scrubbing

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

Method 2 – University Database Scrounging

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

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

Method 3 – Journal Article Snowballing

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

Method 4 – Dissertation Scavenging

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

• Open Access Theses & Dissertations
• Stanford SearchWorks

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

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

Need a helping hand?

Step 2: Log, catalogue and synthesise

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

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

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

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

I’ll discuss each of these below:

2.1 – Log the reference information

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

2.2 – Build an organised catalogue

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

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

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

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

2.3 – Digest and synthesise

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

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

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

Step 3: Outline and write it up!

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

3.1 – Draw up your outline

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

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

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

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

PS – check out our free literature review chapter template…

3.2 – Get writing

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

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

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

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

Literature Review Example

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

Let’s Recap

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

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

Psst… there’s more!

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

38 Comments

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

This is awesome!

I wish I come across GradCoach earlier enough.

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

Thank you for this good job.

Keep it up!

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

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

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

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

Thank you Gradcoach.

Really agreed. Admirable effort

thank you for this beautiful well explained recap.

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

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

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

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

It is timely

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

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

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

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

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

This is super helpful thank you very much.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks, Stephanie 🙂

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

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

thank you so much.

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

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

Thank you excellent piece of work and great mentoring

Thanks, it was useful

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

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

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

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

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

Very timely.

I appreciate.

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

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

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

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

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

• Print Friendly

Literature Reviews

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

Developing a Literature Review

1. Purpose and Scope

To help you develop a literature review, gather information on existing research, sub-topics, relevant research, and overlaps. Note initial thoughts on the topic - a mind map or list might be helpful - and avoid unfocused reading, collecting irrelevant content.  A literature review serves to place your research within the context of existing knowledge. It demonstrates your understanding of the field and identifies gaps that your research aims to fill. This helps in justifying the relevance and necessity of your study.

To avoid over-reading, set a target word count for each section and limit reading time. Plan backwards from the deadline and move on to other parts of the investigation. Read major texts and explore up-to-date research. Check reference lists and citation indexes for common standard texts. Be guided by research questions and refocus on your topic when needed. Stop reading if you find similar viewpoints or if you're going off topic.

You can use a "Synthesis Matrix" to keep track of your reading notes. This concept map helps you to provide a summary of the literature and its connections is produced as a result of this study. Utilizing referencing software like RefWorks to obtain citations, you can construct the framework for composing your literature evaluation.

2. Source Selection

Focus on searching for academically authoritative texts such as academic books, journals, research reports, and government publications. These sources are critical for ensuring the credibility and reliability of your review. 

• Academic Books: Provide comprehensive coverage of a topic.
• Journal Articles: Offer the most up-to-date research and are essential for a literature review.
• Research Reports: Detailed accounts of specific research projects.
• Government Publications: Official documents that provide reliable data and insights.

3. Thematic Analysis

Instead of merely summarizing sources, identify and discuss key themes that emerge from the literature. This involves interpreting and evaluating how different authors have tackled similar issues and how their findings relate to your research.

4. Critical Evaluation

Adopt a critical attitude towards the sources you review. Scrutinize, question, and dissect the material to ensure that your review is not just descriptive but analytical. This helps in highlighting the significance of various sources and their relevance to your research.

Each work's critical assessment should take into account:

Provenance:  What qualifications does the author have? Are the author's claims backed up by proof, such as first-hand accounts from history, case studies, stories, statistics, and current scientific discoveries? Methodology:  Were the strategies employed to locate, collect, and evaluate the data suitable for tackling the study question? Was the sample size suitable? Were the findings properly reported and interpreted? Objectivity : Is the author's viewpoint impartial or biased? Does the author's thesis get supported by evidence that refutes it, or does it ignore certain important facts? Persuasiveness:  Which of the author's arguments is the strongest or weakest in terms of persuasiveness? Value:  Are the author's claims and deductions believable? Does the study ultimately advance our understanding of the issue in any meaningful way?

5. Categorization

Organize your literature review by grouping sources into categories based on themes, relevance to research questions, theoretical paradigms, or chronology. This helps in presenting your findings in a structured manner.

6. Source Validity

Ensure that the sources you include are valid and reliable. Classic texts may retain their authority over time, but for fields that evolve rapidly, prioritize the most recent research. Always check the credibility of the authors and the impact of their work in the field.

7. Synthesis and Findings

Synthesize the information from various sources to draw conclusions about the current state of knowledge. Identify trends, controversies, and gaps in the literature. Relate your findings to your research questions and suggest future directions for research.

Practical Tips

• Use a variety of sources, including online databases, university libraries, and reference lists from relevant articles. This ensures a comprehensive coverage of the literature.
• Avoid listing sources without analysis. Use tables, bulk citations, and footnotes to manage references efficiently and make your review more readable.
• Writing a literature review is an ongoing process. Start writing early and revise as you read more. This iterative process helps in refining your arguments and identifying additional sources as needed.  

Brown University Library (2024) Organizing and Creating Information. Available at: https://libguides.brown.edu/organize/litreview (Accessed: 30 July 2024).

Pacheco-Vega, R. (2016) Synthesizing different bodies of work in your literature review: The Conceptual Synthesis Excel Dump (CSED) technique . Available at: http://www.raulpacheco.org/2016/06/synthesizing-different-bodies-of-work-in-your-literature-review-the-conceptual-synthesis-excel-dump-technique/ (Accessed: 30 July 2024).

Study Advice at the University of Reading (2024) Literature reviews . Available at: https://libguides.reading.ac.uk/literaturereview/developing (Accessed: 31 July 2024).

Further Reading

Frameworks for creating answerable (re)search questions  How to Guide

Literature Searching How to Guide

• << Previous: Steps for Creating a Literature Review
• Next: Providing Evidence / Critical Analysis >>
• Last Updated: Sep 4, 2024 11:43 AM
• URL: https://library.lsbu.ac.uk/literaturereviews

• University of Texas Libraries

Literature Reviews

• What is a literature review?
• Steps in the Literature Review Process
• Define your research question
• Determine inclusion and exclusion criteria
• Choose databases and search
• Review Results
• Synthesize Results
• Analyze Results
• Librarian Support
• Artificial Intelligence (AI) Tools

What is a Literature Review?

A literature or narrative review is a comprehensive review and analysis of the published literature on a specific topic or research question. The literature that is reviewed contains: books, articles, academic articles, conference proceedings, association papers, and dissertations. It contains the most pertinent studies and points to important past and current research and practices. It provides background and context, and shows how your research will contribute to the field. 

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

From  S age Research Methods

Purpose of a Literature Review

A literature review can be written as an introduction to a study to:

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

Or it can be a separate work (a research article on its own) which:

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

Limitations of a Literature Review

Some of the limitations of a literature review are:

• It's a snapshot in time. Unlike other reviews, this one has beginning, a middle and an end. There may be future developments that 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 make sure 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).

Source: Grant, Maria J., and Andrew Booth. “A Typology of Reviews: An Analysis of 14 Review Types and Associated Methodologies.” Health Information & Libraries Journal, vol. 26, no. 2, June 2009, pp. 91–108. Wiley Online Library, doi:10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x.

Librarian Assistance

For help, please contact the librarian for your subject area.  We have a guide to library specialists by subject .

• Last Updated: Aug 26, 2024 5:59 AM
• URL: https://guides.lib.utexas.edu/literaturereviews

Contribution of Artificial Intelligence in Entrepreneurship: A Systematic Literature Review

• Conference paper
• First Online: 29 August 2024
• Cite this conference paper

• Fatima Ezzahra Mnajli 11 &
• Razane Chroqui 12  

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems ((LNNS,volume 1100))

Included in the following conference series:

• International Conference on Digital Technologies and Applications

Increasing digitization and advances in artificial intelligence (AI) are bringing new jobs or business models. There is a gap in current research on the impact of digitalization on performance. This systematic literature review (SLR) seeks to enhance our understanding of this field and provides a logical evaluation of existing contributions. It aims to review research on the way artificial intelligence impacts performance. The findings show that artificial intelligence has a significant impact on business, especially a positive impact on entrepreneurs. The present study provides policy signal makers and entrepreneurs with a comprehensive view of key concepts, enabling them to understand the current state of artificial intelligence in the industry.

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

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime
• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Muhuri, P.K., Shukla, A.K., Abraham, A.: Industry 4.0: a bibliometric analysis and detailed overview. Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell. 78 , 218–235 (2019)

Google Scholar  

Schlick, J.: Industry 4.0 in der praktischen Anwendung. In: Bauernhansl, T., ten Hompel, M., Vogel-Heuser, B. (eds.) Industry 4. 0 in Produktion, Automatisierung und Logistik. Anwendung, Technologien und Migration. Springer Vieweg, Wiesbaden (2014)

Manesh, M.F., Pellegrini, M.M., Marzi, G., Dabic, M.: Knowledge management in the fourth industrial revolution: mapping the literature and scoping future avenues. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manage 68 (1), 289–300 (2021)

Daugherty, P., Wilson, J.: Human þ Machine: Reimagining Work in the Age of AI. Harvard Business Review Press, Boston (2018)

Makridakis, S.: The forthcoming Artificial Intelligence (AI) revolution: its impact on society and firms. Futures 90 , 46–60 (2017)

Article   Google Scholar  

Levesque, M., Obschonka, M., Nambisan, S.: Pursuing impactful entrepreneurship research using AI. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice (2020)

Amankwah-Amoah, J., Khan, Z., Wood, G.R., Knight, G.A.: COVID-19 and digitalization: the great acceleration. J. Bus. Res. 136 , 602–611 (2021)

Crescenzi, R., Giua, M., Sonzogno, G.V.: Mind the Covid-19 crisis: an evidence-based implementation of next generation EU. J. Policy Model. 43 (2), 278–297 (2021)

Dubey, R., et al.: Big data analytics and artificial intelligence pathway to operational performance under the effects of entrepreneurial orientation and environmental dynamism: a study of manufacturing organizations. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 226 , 107599 (2020)

Davidsson, P., Recker, J.C., von Briel, F.: External enablement of new venture creation: a framework. Acad. Manage. Perspect. 34 , 311–332 (2018). Advance Online Publication

Soltanifar, M., Hughes, M., Göcke, L.: Digital Entrepreneurship: Impact on Business and Society. Springer, Cham (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-53914-6

Li, P., Li, T., Wang, X., Zhang, S., Jiang, Y., Tang, Y.: Scholar recommendation based on high-order propagation of knowledge graphs. Int. J. Semant. Web Inf. Syst. 18 (1), 1–19 (2022)

Obschonka, M., Audretsch, D.: B: Artificial intelligence and big data in entrepreneurship: A new era has begun. Small Bus. Econ. 55 (3), 529–539 (2020)

Guo, H., Guo, A., Ma, H.: Inside the black box: how business model innovation contributes to digital start-up performance. J. Innov. Knowl. 7 (2), 100188 (2022)

Caputo, A., Pizzi, S., Pellegrini, M.M., Dabić, M.: Digitalization and business models: where are we going? A science map of the field. J. Bus. Res. 123 , 489–501 (2021)

Darwish, S., Darwish, A., Bunagan, V.: New aspects on using artificial intelligence to shape the future of entrepreneurs. Inf. Sci. Lett. 9 (1), 6 (2020)

Khalid, N.: Artificial intelligence learning and entrepreneurial performance among university students: evidence from Malaysian higher educational institutions. J. Intell. Fuzzy Syst. 39 (4), 5417–5435 (2020)

Article   MathSciNet   Google Scholar  

Upadhyay, N., Upadhyay, S., Dwivedi, Y. K.: Theorizing artificial intelligence acceptance and digital entrepreneurship model. Int. J. Entrepreneurial Behav. Res. 28 , 1138–1166 (2021)

Ratten, V.: Coronavirus (covid-19) and entrepreneurship: changing life and work landscape. J. Small Bus. Entrep. 32 (5), 503–516 (2020)

Davidsson, P.: Researching Entrepreneurship: Conceptualization and Design, 2nd edn. Springer, Cham (2016)

George, G., Haas, M.R., Pentland, A.: Big data and management. Acad. Manag. J. 57 , 321–332 (2014)

Von Briel, F., Davidsson, P., Recker, J.: Digital technologies as external enablers of new venture creation in the IT hardware sector. Entrepreneurship Theory Pract. 42 (1), 47–69 (2018)

Shoufu, Y., Dan, M., Zuiyi, S., Lin, W., Li, D.: The impact of artificial intelligence industry agglomeration on economic complexity. Econ. Res. Ekonomska Istraživanja 36 , 1–29 (2022)

Pfau, W., Rimpp, P.: AI-enhanced business models for digital entrepreneurship. In: Soltanifar, M., Hughes, M., Göcke, L. (eds.) Digital entrepreneurship. FBF, pp. 121–140. Springer, Cham (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-53914-6_7

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Gupta, B.M., Dhawan, S.M.: Artificial intelligence research in India: a scientometric assessment of publications output during 2007-16. DESIDOC J. Libr. Inf. Technol. 38 (6), 416 (2018)

Nambisan, S.: Digital entrepreneurship: toward a digital technology perspective of entrepreneurship. Entrep. Theory Pract. 41 (6), 1029–1055 (2017)

Gupta, B.B., Gaurav, A., Panigrahi, P.K., Arya, V.: Analysis of artificial intelligence-based technologies and approaches on sustainable entrepreneurship. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 186 , 122152 (2023)

Lv, Z., Wang, N., Ma, X., Sun, Y., Meng, Y., Tian, Y.: Evaluation standards of intelligent technology based on financial alternative data. J. Innov. Knowl. 7 (4), 100229 (2022)

Khanam, S., Tanweer, S., Khalid, S.S.: Future of internet of things: enhancing cloud-based IoT using artificial intelligence. Int. J. Cloud Appl. Comput. 12 (1), 1–23 (2022)

Lu, Y.: Artificial intelligence: a survey on evolution, models, applications and future trends. J. Manage. Analytics 6 (1), 1–29 (2019)

Duan, L., Xu, L., Liu, Y., Lee, J.: Cluster-based outlier detection. Ann. Oper. Res. 168 (1), 151–168 (2009)

Saura, J.R., Ribeiro-Soriano, D., Palacios-Marqués, D.: Setting B2B digital marketing in artificial intelligence-based CRMs: a review and directions for future research. Ind. Mark. Manage. 98 , 161–178 (2021)

Wirtz, J.: Organizational ambidexterity: cost-effective service excellence, service robots, and artificial intelligence. Organ. Dyn. 49 (3), 1–9 (2020)

Kaplan, A., Haenlein, M.: Rulers of the world, unite! The challenges and opportunities of artificial intelligence. Bus. Horiz. 63 (1), 37–50 (2020)

Zoukal, S., Bakana, G.T., Nani, S., Hassoune, S.: Démarche d’élaboration d’une revue systématique. Revue Marocaine de Santé Publique 6 (9) (2019)

Popkova, E.G., Sergi, B.S.: Human capital and AI in industry 4.0. Convergence and divergence in social entrepreneurship in Russia. J. Intellect. Capital 21 (4), 565–581 (2020)

Sarasvathy, S.D., Dew, N., Velamuri, S.R., Venkataraman, S.: Three views of entrepreneurial opportunity. In: Acs, Z.J., Audretsch, D.B. (eds.) Handbook of Entrepreneurship Research. International Handbook Series on Entrepreneurship, vol. 1, pp. 141–160. Springer, Boston. https://doi.org/10.1007/0-387-24519-7_7

Paranyushkin, D.: InfraNodus: Generating insight using text network analysis. In: The World Wide Web Conference, pp. 3584–3589. Academic Press, May 2019

Reim, W., Åström, J., Eriksson, O.: Implementation of artificial intelligence (AI): a roadmap for business model innovation. AI 1 (2), 11 (2020)

Burström, T., Parida, V., Lahti, T., Wincent, J.: AI-enabled business-model innovation and transformation in industrial ecosystems: a framework, model and outline for further research. J. Bus. Res. 127 , 85–95 (2021)

Shepherd, D.A., Majchrzak, A.: Machines augmenting entrepreneurs: opportunities (and threats) at the Nexus of artificial intelligence and entrepreneurship. J. Bus. Ventur. 37 (4), 106227 (2022)

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Laboratory of Management, Marketing and Communication, Hassan First University of Settat, ENCG, Settat, Morocco

Fatima Ezzahra Mnajli

Hassan First University of Settat, National School of Applied Sciences of Berrechid, LISA, Settat, Morocco

Razane Chroqui

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Fatima Ezzahra Mnajli .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Sidi Mohamed Ben Abdellah University, Fes, Morocco

Saad Motahhir

Badre Bossoufi

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2024 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Cite this paper.

Mnajli, F.E., Chroqui, R. (2024). Contribution of Artificial Intelligence in Entrepreneurship: A Systematic Literature Review. In: Motahhir, S., Bossoufi, B. (eds) Digital Technologies and Applications. ICDTA 2024. Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems, vol 1100. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-68660-3_2

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-68660-3_2

Published : 29 August 2024

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-031-68659-7

Online ISBN : 978-3-031-68660-3

eBook Packages : Intelligent Technologies and Robotics Intelligent Technologies and Robotics (R0)

Share this paper

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

The Gap Between Trustworthy AI Research and Trustworthy Software Research: A Tertiary Study

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, supplementary material, index terms.

Computing methodologies

Artificial intelligence

General and reference

Document types

Surveys and overviews

Software and its engineering

Software organization and properties

Extra-functional properties

Recommendations

Benchmarking considerations for trustworthy and responsible ai (panel).

Continuing growth of Artificial Intelligence (AI) adoption across enterprises and governments around the world has fueled the demand for trustworthy AI systems and applications. The need ranges from the so-called Explainable or Interpretable AI to ...

Formalizing Trust in Artificial Intelligence: Prerequisites, Causes and Goals of Human Trust in AI

Trust is a central component of the interaction between people and AI, in that 'incorrect' levels of trust may cause misuse, abuse or disuse of the technology. But what, precisely, is the nature of trust in AI? What are the prerequisites and goals of ...

Research on Trustworthy Mechanism Based on Agent

It is very important in theory and application to evaluate credibility of trust model. Although many application models are carefully analyzed, designed and implemented, there exist some faults yet. In this paper we studied trust relationship of agents, ...

Information

Published in.

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Check for updates, author tags.

• trustworthy
• quality attribute
• artificial intelligence
• software system
• systematic literature review

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.

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: 22 August 2024

To share or not to share, that is the question: a qualitative study of Chinese astronomers’ perceptions, practices, and hesitations about open data sharing

• Jinya Liu   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-9804-8752 1 ,
• Kunhua Zhao 2 , 3 ,
• Liping Gu 2 , 3 &
• Huichuan Xia   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-0838-7452 1  

Humanities and Social Sciences Communications volume  11 , Article number:  1063 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

189 Accesses

Metrics details

• Science, technology and society
• Social policy

Many astronomers in Western countries may have taken open data sharing (ODS) for granted to enhance astronomical discoveries and productivity. However, how strong such an assumption holds among Chinese astronomers has not been investigated or deliberated extensively. This may hinder international ODS with Chinese astronomers and lead to a misunderstanding of Chinese astronomers’ perceptions and practices of ODS. To fill this gap, we conducted a qualitative study comprising 14 semi-structured interviews and 136 open-ended survey responses with Chinese astronomers to understand their choices and concerns regarding ODS. We found that many Chinese astronomers conducted ODS to promote research outputs and respected it as a tradition. Some Chinese astronomers have advocated for data rights protection and data infrastructure’s further improvement in usability and availability to guarantee their ODS practices. Still, some Chinese astronomers agonized about ODS regarding the validity of oral commitment with international research groups and the choices between international traditions and domestic customs in ODS. We discovered two dimensions in Chinese astronomers’ action strategies and choices of ODS and discussed their descriptions and consequences. We also proposed the implications of our research for enhancing international ODS in future work.

Similar content being viewed by others

Citizen scientists—practices, observations, and experience

Perceived benefits of open data are improving but scientists still lack resources, skills, and rewards

A focus groups study on data sharing and research data management

Introduction.

Open data sharing (ODS) emphasizes scientific data’s availability to the public beyond its usability and distribution within academic communities (UNESCO, 2021 ). ODS has become increasingly significant since the Big Data era has engendered a paradigm shift towards data-intensive science (Tolle et al., 2011 ), and ODS has promoted data-intensive science to incorporate all stakeholders, such as researchers, policymakers, and system designers to address data processing and utilization issues collectively (Kurata et al., 2017 ; Zuiderwijk et al., 2024 ). Meanwhile, ODS has improved scientific discovery and productivity since different governments and funding agencies have endorsed ODS and published policies to facilitate it (Lamprecht et al., 2020 ). For example, the UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) issued the “Concordat on open research data” in 2016 to ensure that research data gathered and generated by the UK research community must be openly available to the public (UK Research and Innovation, 2016 ). The Chinese government published a “Scientific Data Management Methods” policy in 2018, requiring government-funded research to share its data with the public (General Office of the State Council of China, 2018 ). Besides such government initiatives, the scientific community has also proposed guiding principles for ODS, such as the “FAIR principles” to facilitate data sharing in respect of Findability, Accessibility, Interoperability, and Reuse (Wilkinson et al., 2016 ).

Astronomy is data-intensive and has long been regarded as a prime model of ODS for other scientific fields. For example, the famous Large Synoptic Survey Telescope (LSST) project has committed to real-time ODS after its start-up in 2025 and has released early survey data since June 2021 (Guy et al., 2023 ). Scholars have conducted a few studies to dig out the good practices of ODS in astronomy and found that ODS has a long tradition in astronomy supported by its well-established knowledge infrastructure and data policies (Zuiderwijk and Spiers, 2019 ; Borgman et al., 2021 ). Still, scholars found that some astronomers were hesitant to conduct ODS due to the high reward expectations (e.g., acknowledgment, institutional yearly evaluation, extra citation) and extra efforts (e.g., additional data description) required in ODS practices (Zuiderwijk and Spiers, 2019 ; Kim and Zhang, 2015 ); some astronomers also raised barriers about the usability and availability of data infrastructure to support ODS practices (Pepe et al., 2014 ).

Despite the ODS tradition in astronomy, researchers’ motivations and barriers to ODS may differ based on their cultural contexts. Most empirical studies of ODS have been conducted in Western and developed countries (Genova, 2018 ). Whether these findings hold in non-Western cultures deserves further exploration. Chinese culture and customs differ from Western ones, which may impose distinctive influences on Chinese people’s perspectives and behaviors. For example, Confucianism often renders Chinese individual researchers stick to collectivism or the societal roles assigned to them (Jin and Peng, 2021 ), which is less common in Western culture or academia to our knowledge. Also, scientific research paradigms have originated from and situated in Western culture for a long time. They call for critical examinations and alternative perspectives at the individual and societal or cultural levels, and ODS has been regarded as an essential lens to deliberate it (Serwadda et al., 2018 ; Bezuidenhout and Chakauya, 2018 ; Zuiderwijk et al., 2024 ).

Besides our concerns about cultural and research paradigm differences, Chinese astronomers’ distinctive characteristics have also motivated us to conduct this study. First, based on our prior experience with some Chinese astronomers, we have observed that Chinese astronomers follow enclosed or independent data-sharing norms that are uncommon to researchers in other disciplines. Their research seems to be more international than domestic. Since a slogan from the Chinese government has influenced many research disciplines (including ours) in China, advocating Chinese scholars to “Write your paper on the motherland” (Wang et al., 2024 ), we wondered how such propaganda would impact Chinese astronomers’ attitudes and behaviors. Second, a recent study has revealed that some Chinese astronomers struggled with ODS because they respected it as a tradition on the one hand and desired to gain career advantages (e.g., more data citations) on the other (Liu J, 2021). This finding contrasts another recent study’s conclusion that Chinese early career researchers (ECRs) (in non-astronomy disciplines) would only welcome ODS if the evaluation system rewarded them (Xu, et al., 2020 ). Hence, we wanted to investigate Chinese astronomers’ motivations and barriers regarding ODS further.

Finally, though ODS has been well-acknowledged internationally, it has not been studied or implemented extensively in most research disciplines in China, with astronomy as a rare exception. Hence, we posited that research about ODS in astronomy might shed light on other research disciplines’ popularization of ODS in China. In addition, previous studies on ODS in China have primarily focused on the Chinese government’s open data policies, infrastructure conditions, and management practices (Zhang, et al., 2022 ; Huang et al., 2021 ). To the best of our knowledge, little attention has been paid to Chinese researchers’ perceptions and practices. Thus, we wanted to conduct an exploratory investigation with Chinese astronomers to fill this gap and foster international ODS and research collaboration in Chinese astronomy and other research disciplines more broadly.

With these motivations in mind, we proposed the following research questions.

How do Chinese astronomers perceive and practice open data sharing?

Why do some Chinese astronomers hesitate over the issue of open data sharing?

To address those research questions, we conducted a qualitative study comprising 14 semi-structured interviews and 136 open-ended survey responses with Chinese astronomers to understand their practices and concerns regarding ODS. We found that many Chinese astronomers conducted ODS to promote research outputs and respected it as a tradition. Some Chinese astronomers have advocated for data rights protection and data infrastructure’s further improvement in usability and availability to guarantee their ODS practices. Still, some Chinese astronomers agonized about ODS regarding the validity of oral commitment with international research groups and the choices between international traditions and domestic customs in ODS. We discovered two dimensions in Chinese astronomers’ action strategies and choices of ODS and discussed these findings and implications. This study makes the following contributions. First, it provides a non-Western viewpoint for global ODS in astronomy and recommendations for advancing global and Chinese ODS policies and practices. Second, it reveals Chinese astronomers’ concerns, motivations, and barriers to conducting ODS. This may inspire domestic government, international research policymakers, and ODS platforms and practitioners to empathize with and support Chinese astronomers. Finally, this study may shed light on implementing ODS in other research disciplines in China, which has not been popular.

Literature review

The background of ods in science.

The open data movement in scientific communities was initiated at the beginning of the 21st century (e.g., Max Planck Society, 2003) (Tu and Shen, 2023 ). ODS, also known as open research data, advocates that the openness of scientific data to the public is imperative to science (UNESCO, 2021 ; Fox et al., 2021 ). Prior research has inquired about researchers’ intrinsic and extrinsic motivations for ODS. Intrinsic motivations include personal background and ethical perspectives. For example, a researcher’s personal background (research experience, gender, position, age, etc.) has been found to affect their ODS preferences, and significant differences have been observed in research experience (Zuiderwijk and Spiers, 2019 ; Digital Science et al., 2024 ). Also, a researcher’s ethical stance influences their ODS practices. Some researchers conduct ODS because they want to benefit the research community and promote reciprocity among data stakeholders, such as data producers, funders, and data users (Lee et al., 2014 ; Ju and Kim, 2019 ). Extrinsic motivations for ODS include incentive policies, data infrastructure, and external pressures from funders, journals, or community rules. Incentive policies, such as the promise of data citation and the rewarding credit from their institutions, effectively enhance ODS (Dorch et al., 2015 ; Popkin, 2019 ). Also, a well-established infrastructure could facilitate ODS by reducing its cost (Kim and Zhang, 2015 ). Moreover, regulations from researchers’ stakeholders (e.g., journals and funders) press their ODS practices as well. One example is developing data policies. Kim and Stanton proposed that journal regulative pressure has significantly positive relationships with ODS behaviors (Kim and Stanton, 2016 ).

Despite the motivations, researchers in ODS still have valid justifications for not conducting such practices (Zuiderwijk et al., 2024 ; Boeckhout et al., 2018 ). Sayogo and Pardo categorized those barriers into (1) technological barriers, (2) social, organizational, and economic barriers, and (3) legal and policy barriers (Sayogo and Pardo, 2013 ). More specifically, at the individual level, Houtkoop et al. found that ODS was uncommon in psychology due to psychologists’ insufficient training and extra workload (Houtkoop et al., 2018 ). Meanwhile, Banks et al. indicated that researchers in organizational research were afraid of exposing the quality of their data (Banks et al., 2022 ). In addition, researchers’ ethical concerns also influence their ODS practices, primarily privacy and fairness issues. Walsh et al. identified the privacy risks related to identity, attribute, and membership disclosure as the main ethical concerns about ODS (Walsh et al., 2018 ). Anane et al. worried that ODS could compromise fairness because some new or busy researchers might lose their data rights during the critical post‐first‐publication period (Anane-Sarpong et al., 2020 ). At the societal level, inadequate data policies have failed to guarantee researchers’ data rights, and property rights are unclear. Enwald et al. proposed that researchers in physics and technology, arts and humanities, social sciences, and health sciences were concerned about legal issues (e.g., confidentiality and intellectual property rights), misuse or misinterpretation of data, and loss of authorship (Enwald et al., 2022 ). Anane et al. found that data ownership was a crucial barrier affecting public health researchers’ willingness to share data openly (Anane-Sarpong et al., 2018 ).

The factors that influence astronomical ODS practices

Astronomy has been a prime example of ODS practices in scientific communities (Koribalski, 2019 ). For example, in gamma-ray astronomy, astronomers have explored how to render high-level data formats and software openly accessible and sharable for the astronomical community (Deil et al., 2017 ). In space-based astronomy, ODS has been an established norm in its research community for a long history (Harris and Baumann, 2015 ). In the interdisciplinary field of astrophysics, evidence has shown that papers with links to data, which also represent an approach of ODS, have a citation advantage over papers that did not link the data (Dorch et al., 2015 ). Additionally, many data archives in astronomy have been openly accessible to the public to increase their reusable value and potential for rediscovery (Rebull, 2022 ).

Prior studies have examined the socio-technical factors fostering ODS. Data policies support ODS implementations, and existing data infrastructure plays an essential role in ODS practices in astronomy (Pasquetto et al., 2016 ; Genova, 2018 ). For example, Reichman et al. attributed astronomy’s long tradition of ODS to its extensive and collaborative infrastructure (e.g., software and data centers) (Reichman et al., 2011 ). In practice, some famous astronomy organizations have built solid data infrastructures to support ODS, such as NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS) and the International Virtual Observatory Alliance (IVOA) (Kurtz et al., 2004 ; Genova, 2018 ). Astronomy’s integrated knowledge infrastructure spanning decades and countries, encompassing observational data, catalogs, bibliographic records, archives, thesauri, and software, prompts global ODS among astronomers (Borgman et al., 2021 ). Many astronomers have a strong sense of duty to their research communities and the public. Thus, they would accept requests for data to assist colleagues and facilitate new scientific discoveries, which enhances ODS (Stahlman, 2022 ). Besides, astronomers perceived reciprocity influences their ODS practices. They aspire to improve their research outputs’ visibility and contribute to new, innovative, or high-quality research via ODS (Zuiderwijk and Spiers, 2019 ).

Still, some factors may hinder astronomers’ ODS practices. At the individual level, ODS may bring them extra learning load and academic reputation risks. For example, if astronomers perceive challenges in ODS or feel they need to acquire further knowledge, they may be less inclined to engage in such practices (Gray et al., 2011 ). Additionally, astronomers expressed concerns about the possibility of others discovering mistakes in the data (Zuiderwijk and Spiers, 2019 ). Pepe et al. also showed that the difficulty of sharing large data sets and the overreliance on non-robust, non-reproducible mechanisms for sharing data (e.g., via email) were the main hindrances to astronomers’ ODS practices (Pepe et al., 2014 ). At the societal level, an exponential increase in astronomical data volume has led to a continuous enrichment of utilization scenarios. ODS may involve data privacy or national security issues, especially when such data is integrated with other datasets. Thus, Harris and Baumann regarded the primary concern in global ODS as safeguarding national security and establishing appropriate licensing mechanisms (Harris and Baumann, 2015 ).

The development of ODS in China

The Chinese government has recognized ODS as a national strategy in both scientific and public service domains. They issued the “Scientific Data Management Methods” in 2018 and “Opinions on Building a More Perfect System and Mechanism for the Market-oriented Allocation of Factors” in 2022. These policies require that data from government-funded research projects must be shared with the public according to the principle of “openness as the norm and non-openness as the exception” (General Office of the State Council of China, 2018 ; General Office of the State Council of China, 2024 ). The Chinese government applied the “hierarchical management, safety, and control” concept as ODS arrangements to realize a dynamic ordered open research data at the social level (Li et al., 2022 ).

At the institutional level, the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) has been actively promoting infrastructure construction and institutional repositories to support ODS. For example, CAS has affiliated eleven out of twenty national-level data centers that are foundational for ODS in China since 2019. Meanwhile, many Chinese journals have published data policies requesting that researchers append their papers with open-access data. The National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) has funded over 6000 data-intensive research programs, encouraging ODS among them in compliance with the NSFC’s mandate (Zhang et al., 2021 ). Regarding Chinese researchers’ attitudes and practices toward ODS, Zhang et al. have observed that Chinese data policies have shifted from focusing on data management to encompassing both data governance and ODS. This shift has shrunk the gap between Chinese researchers’ positive attitudes toward ODS and their less active ODS behaviors (Zhang et al., 2021 ). Driven by journal policies, Chinese researchers’ ODS behaviors have been encouraged. For example, Li et al. found that more than 90% of the published dataset of ScienceDB is also paper-related data and proposed that the pressure from journals has been the main driving force for researchers to conduct ODS (Li et al., 2022 ). ScienceDB (Science Data Bank) is a general-purpose repository in China that publishes scientific research data from various disciplines (Science Data Bank, 2024 ).

Methodology

We conducted a qualitative study comprising 14 interviews and 136 open-ended survey questions with Chinese astronomers from 12 institutions. Our interview questions were semi-structured. Some were framed from the existing literature, and others were generated during the interviews based on the interviewees’ responses. Our open-ended questions are extended from a recent survey on data management services in Chinese astronomy (Liu, 2021 ). Table 1 depicts the formation of our interview questions that served as the major source of our research data. We acknowledge that the interviewees’ responses could be influenced by questions and context during the interview and tried to avoid such biases with the following strategies. First, although Chinese astronomers were hard to contact and recruit, we did our best to diversify our interview sample. Our interviewed Chinese astronomers included researchers and practitioners in observatories, scholars and Ph.D. students in astronomy at top universities in China, and researchers in astronomical research centers. Second, we conducted our interviews in different contexts, such as on campus, in observatories, at research centers, and over phones. Thus, we tried to de-contextualize our interview questions to reduce potential biases. Finally, our qualitative data and analysis were not only from interviews but also from our previous survey. We used the interview and survey data to corroborate and complement each other.

Data collection and analysis

Our interviews were conducted in person or via WeChat video. They lasted 30–45 min and were recorded and fully transcribed. Our recruitment was challenging and time-consuming due to COVID-19 and the limited number of Chinese astronomers available for the interview. We have obtained their informed consent and have followed strict institutional rules to protect their privacy and data confidentiality. In addition, we conducted a survey using the online platform ‘Survey Star’ and obtained responses from 136 Chinese astronomers. For the scope of this paper, we focus on reporting qualitative data.

We kept our first round of data analysis, including notetaking and transcription, simultaneous with the interview progress. Meanwhile, we have fully transcribed and translated the interview recordings in Chinese into verbatim in English. As for the data analysis part, we employed the thematic analysis technique to extract and analyze themes from the interview transcripts (The interviewees are numbered with the letter P) and open-ended survey responses (The survey responses are numbered with the letter Q). Thematic analysis is well-suited for analyzing interview transcripts and open-ended survey responses (Braun and Clarke, 2006 ). We referenced Braun and Clarke’s recommended phases and stages of the analysis process (Braun and Clarke, 2006 ). First, we read through transcriptions and highlight meaning units. Simultaneously, we conducted coding and identified participants’ accounts, which were presented in the form of notes. Second, we categorized the codes and subsequently attributed them with themes that corresponded to ethical concerns. Third, we verified the themes by having them reviewed by two additional authors to ensure high accuracy in our analysis. Finally, we linked our themes with existing literature to provide a more comprehensive narrative of our findings. Table 2 lists the demographic information of the interviewees.

We referenced Stamm et al.’s work to categorize the career stages of the Chinese astronomers we interviewed (Stamm et al., 2017 ). As shown in Table 2 , Most interviewees fall into the Senior-career stage because they have rich research experiences and resources in ODS.

Three types of Chinese astronomers’ behaviors at different ODS stages

We categorize the Chinese astronomers’ ODS behaviors into three types at different stages of ODS. First, Chinese astronomers mentioned that one type of ODS behavior is making the data publicly available on a popular platform (e.g., Github, NASA ADS, arXiv) or data centers after the proprietary data period has expired. The proprietary data period, or the exclusive data period, refers to the time between researchers first accessing the data and publishing their findings. This period typically ranges from one year to two years in astronomy, which aims to cover a normal and complete astronomical research cycle. P13 explained:

The data is not in our hands. After we use the telescope to complete the observations, the data will be stored in the telescope’s database. During the proprietary period (12 months), only you can view it. After the proprietary data period has passed, anyone can view it. (P13)

She meant that the raw data produced by astronomers were stored by the builders, who were also responsible for making those data visible to the public when the proprietary data period had expired. Zuiderwijk and Spiers’s survey has also revealed that astronomers seldom store raw data due to their inability to build a data center. Consequently, astronomers often do not influence data-sharing decisions directly but only propose data collection ideas (Zuiderwijk and Spiers, 2019 ).

Secondly, Chinese astronomers also regraded sharing the data with research teams or individuals upon their requests during the proprietary data period, which is also feasible. For example, P5, said:

I published one paper using research data whose proprietary period hasn’t expired. If someone emailed me to inquire whether they could obtain the data for “Figure 2” [here P5 referred to an exemplary figure in her previous publication]. I usually send the data to them. It is common [in astronomy] to communicate with the author via email to consult their willingness toward ODS. (P5)

P5 assumed that sharing data privately was allowed and common among astronomers when the proprietary data period had not yet expired. To some extent, P5 also transformed this private approach toward a visible approach by making his processed data public and publishing it on open platforms.

P11 added the reason why astronomers used this private approach:

The data is not immediately made available. There is a proprietary data period of one or two years. Priority is given to the direct contributors to use the data and produce the first batch of scientific results. After the proprietary data period has expired, others were allowed to discover the value of the data jointly…Other astronomers may also be interested in the data during the proprietary data period. After all, during this period, others were unable to conduct observations and produce data. (P11)

P11 explained that during the period when he applied for observation, others could not produce the data by using the same telescope. However, they might still be interested in such data. Thus, he might share their research data privately with other astronomers if he deemed it necessary for the other astronomers’ research.

Finally, besides the open sharing of research data, two other astronomers also introduced the third type of ODS behavior, the open sharing of research software, tools, and codes. P12 explained:

When the project was completed, project funders required all the research data to be submitted to a certain location for public use. We also needed to submit the software, tools, and related codes developed by astronomers. (P12)

According to P12, ODS is not merely about data per se but also its associated processing tools and accompaniment.

Another astronomer, P10, mentioned that astronomers may also share their software openly to enhance their research influence. P10 said:

Astronomers may openly share their programs in theoretical research and data simulation, particularly simulation programs or source files. They create open-source materials related to their articles and then make their software or related models available online. They also require acknowledgment if someone uses them later. Nowadays, many astronomers use this method for ODS. (P10)

Individual factors concerning Chinese astronomers’ motivations for ODS

Ods is a tradition and duty.

Twelve Chinese astronomers also mentioned that ODS was a traditional norm in astronomy, and they have been obeying it since they entered this scientific field. P11 said:

We have known a traditional norm since we started working in this field. That is, every time you apply for telescope observations and obtain data, this data must be made public one year later. Even if you have not completed your research or published a paper by then, the data will still be made public. For us astronomers, ODS is a natural practice and meaningful endeavor. We believe that astronomy is a role model of ODS for other research fields to follow. (P11)

Four Chinese astronomers also introduced the influence of the tradition of ODS on their motivations for ODS. For example, P10 said:

In the past, I have obtained data of my interest from other astronomers by emailing them. Therefore, if someone approaches me for data, I would also be willing to provide it. (P10)

Another two astronomers elaborated that they acknowledge the ODS tradition due to its benefit to both astronomers and telescopes. P1 said:

According to the international convention, to promote the influence of the telescope and enrich its research outputs, the data is released to the public based on different proprietary data periods. Each data release includes not only raw data but also data products generated by technical personnel processing the raw data. (P1)

I do not process raw data; instead, I typically utilize data products generated by telescopes. These data products, which are openly available in the public domain, assist individuals like me who lack technical expertise in processing raw data to conduct scientific research. Thus, we must also acknowledge the telescope’s contribution when publishing our findings. This is the norm in astronomy. (P13)

P1’s and P13’s opinions were common, which elaborated that telescopes have offered astronomers different kinds of data, enhancing their potential research outputs. In return, when researchers utilize the data generated by telescopes, they also contribute to the telescope’s influence and reputation.

It is worth noting that this tradition is also in telescopes’ data policies, which influences Chinese telescopes’ data proprietary periods setting. For example, the Chinese astronomy projects LAMOST and FAST release data policies that mention the proprietary data period following international conventions. As indicated by P6, the international convention typically observes the proprietary data period of six months to one and a half years.

Six Chinese astronomers believed that ODS is an established tradition in astronomy and ought to be respected and enacted as a duty without considering external factors or consequences. For example, P8, mentioned that:

Astronomy is a very pure discipline without economic benefit, and we have the tradition of ODS. Therefore, they state their data source or post a link to their data directly. My willingness to conduct ODS is also influenced by this atmosphere. Besides that, I regard ODS as a basic requirement because data should be tested [via ODS]. (P8)

Another two astronomers considered ODS in astronomy the nature of science, which motivated them to pursue the goal of openness persistently. For example, P11 said:

Astronomy exemplifies a characteristic of being borderless, where there is a strong inclination towards open academic exchange and sharing of resources and tools. Additionally, astronomy is pure due to its non-profit nature. Thus, astronomers have always maintained simplicity, leading to a culture of openness. (P11)

ODS brings beneficial consequences

Still, four Chinese astronomers hoped to improve their research influence and citations through ODS, especially the research to which they had devoted the most effort. For example, P10 said:

Astronomers not only release their data but also the software or code to process it. This is because if other astronomers use my software and code to process the data, they would also cite the papers with my shared software and code. This will increase the influence of my papers and software or code. (P10)

A similar perspective came from our survey responses Q19, Q22, Q34, and Q47, who also perceived that ODS could improve the research impact of their papers and data. For example, Q22 stated:

I have encountered situations where other researchers requested access to my data. One of the reasons I am willing to share data [with them] is to increase my paper citations. (Q22)

Additionally, some Chinese astronomers practiced ODS to replicate and validate their research. For example, Q26 said:

The primary reason I endorse ODS is to replicate my data analysis by peers and enable independent verification of my research outputs. (Q26)

ODS engenders reciprocity and collaboration opportunities

Fourteen Chinese astronomers mentioned that ODS could increase their research outputs and provide possibilities to obtain other astronomers’ data, thereby promoting the prosperity of research outputs in the entire astronomy community. More importantly, they have established a new type of collaborative opportunity through ODS when data are sufficient but resources/capacities to utilize data are limited. For example, P12 expressed that ODS had a positive impact on the research outputs of the scientific community:

An astronomer I respect once stated that initially, they wanted to conceal all research data, but this proved impossible due to the vast amount of data produced by the telescope. As a result, they released all the data from their large-scale projects. The outcome of this ODS behavior rendered explosive growth in research outputs. (P12)

Another two astronomers noted that ODS was essential to cultivate more astronomers to form collaborative efforts to increase research outputs in the scientific community. P6 said:

The data generated by telescopes used to observe transient events have not been subject to the proprietary data period. Once I observe such events, I will encourage other researchers to join in and rapidly identify these unexpected phenomena, facilitating subsequent observations using various telescopes to maximize scientific output as quickly as possible. (P6)

P6 elaborated that astronomers rely on collaborative efforts for special observations, such as discovering new stars, which maximizes the utilization of global telescope resources. This motivation strengthens collaborations among astronomers from different research teams. P14 added:

New events [e.g., new star discoveries] in astronomy often occur in transience. If I do not share information about these events, other astronomers will not know about them. With limited resources, I may be unable to observe them through other telescopes. However, sharing preliminary data about these events can maximize global resources. This allows for a collaborative effort to observe the event using resources from around the world. (P14)

P14 stated that ODS has the potential to appeal to more astronomers to research contributions through their subsequent and collective efforts based on the initial observation. P14’s opinion echoed Reichman et al.’s findings, which revealed that extensive and collaborative infrastructure was the primary driver behind the adoption of ODS (Reichman et al., 2011 ).

Prior research also indicated that limited resources and capacities would increase collaboration among astronomers in astrophysics research (Zuiderwijk and Spiers, 2019 ). A similar opinion also arose from our survey responses Q18, Q30, and Q52. For example, Q30 said:

I am good at processing data instead of writing papers. ODS can allow me to collaborate with someone who is good at writing papers to co-produce the research output. (Q30)

Societal factors concerning Chinese astronomers’ barriers to ODS

The limitations of verbal agreements in international collaboration.

Although most Chinese astronomers endorsed ODS, three were concerned about other astronomers who might have violated their initial commitments to using data for scientific purposes. For example, P7 commented:

I used to have experiences with foreign collaborators who violated their initial commitments, resulting in unpleasant consequences. Specifically, they promised in emails that they would process the data using a different approach from ours. However, they ended up using the same method and perspective as ours. There was not much to be said about it, as it was not illegal or against data policies’ regulations. It is a matter of trust and promises, and all I can do is not share data with them in the future. (P7)

P10 also added that often, the astronomers’ commitment to email correspondence had to rely on their self-discipline to materialize:

If the proprietary data period has not expired and you share the data with others, you have no control over what they do with it except to trust their promise in the email. This situation relies on the self-discipline of astronomers. (P10)

Three astronomers were also concerned about the validity of oral agreements about ODS. They referred to them as “gentlemen’s agreements.” For example, P14 explained:

In principle, data can be shared with others without a signed contract between us but based on the so-called gentleman’s agreement. Thus, some Chinese astronomers may not be willing to make their research data public because they must assume that everyone is a gentleman [to keep their promise], which may not always be the case as there are also scientists who are not accountable due to a highly competitive environment [in science]. (P14)

P14 regarded the “gentlemen’s agreements” as effective only to those who acted in good faith in fulfilling their commitments. They would not impose or presuppose any “ethical” constraints on collaborators. Hence, he noted that some astronomers were unwilling to share data openly within the proprietary data period because they did not trust the other astronomers’ accountability to fulfill their “gentlemen’s agreements.” Besides that, P6 explained the reason that astronomers have broken their commitments. He said:

In astronomy, some data policies have not been effectively constrained because it is impossible to encompass all subsequent data usage and collaboration situations at first…Also, there are many astronomy alliances. If you are not part of our alliance, you are not bound to commitments, which may lead to disputable issues. (P6)

Data is too dear to share immediately

Ten Chinese astronomers considered that the data they obtained possessed unique scientific values that could contribute to their publication priority and prolificity. Given the fact that publication priority, authorship order, and quantity are still the most important and prevalent factors in evaluating a scholar in China, it becomes comprehensible that these astronomers have expressed concerns about the risk of losing the ‘right of first publication’ if they openly share their processed data too soon. For example, P9 confessed:

I am unwilling to conduct ODS primarily because my research findings have not been published yet. I am concerned that ODS might lead to someone else publishing related findings before I do. (P9)

Similar concerns were also expressed in our survey responses Q42, Q46, and Q53. Q53 provided a more detailed explanation:

The individuals or organizations that produce data should have the right to use it first and only make it publicly available after a round of exploration and the publication of relevant research results. If the data is shared openly and completely from the outset, the number of people or organizations willing to invest time and money in obtaining data in the future will decrease since they can use data obtained by others instead of acquiring it by themselves. (Q53)

Another astronomer, P12, held a negative attitude toward ODS at the early stage of research because he was concerned that their data processing capacity was slower than the other research groups once the data was shared with them:

I put a lot of effort into processing data, and if my research findings have not been published but I release my data in three months [some international rules recommend astronomers to open their data as soon as possible], then someone with a more sophisticated data processing software may be able to write and analyze their research paper within a week because they already have the complete workflow prepared. This may upset the sharers who intended to publish a similar finding, as their work has been done so quickly [sooner than the sharer]. (P12)

A similar opinion could be seen in our survey response Q46:

The scientific community should ensure that those who have worked hard to produce the data also have the priority to publish their research findings before the data has been made publicly available. (Q46)

The disparities between the Chinese and foreign research infrastructures

Five Chinese astronomers expressed their concerns about the disparities between the Chinese and foreign research infrastructures. For example, P9 expressed his concern that adhering to international rules in astronomy might contradict the domestic rules in China due to national security and data confidentiality considerations. He said:

International organizations hope our country will lead in ODS, which may sometimes harm our interests. This is especially the case for the data produced through Chinese telescopes, which are published in international academic journals upon the international journal publishers’ requests because this data may involve confidential engineering tasks in Chinese telescopes that are subject to national security purposes. (P9)

Another astronomer, P4, also mentioned that astronomical data may include equipment parameters that may trigger national security concerns. Hence, she has undergone desensitization before conducting ODS:

Astronomical raw data are generated by the equipment directly and are categorized as first-level data [machine-generated data] in the data policies. More importantly, raw astronomical data should be processed before being opened to the public because the raw data may raise [national] security concerns and leakage equipment parameters. (P4)

P4’s concerns about national security are also reflected in China’s national data policies. For example, the Chinese government mandates the “hierarchical management, safety, and control” policy to supervise ODS to balance its order and dynamic (Li et al., 2022 ).

P8 added that Chinese astronomers are sometimes limited by national rules and domestic data infrastructure usability and accessibility. P8 said:

In some Chinese astronomical projects, only certain frequency bands are internationally permitted, and the first to occupy them claims ownership. Moreover, our data storage and ODS are limited by technical difficulties. We don’t have ODS platforms like NASA ADS. Even if there are, these platforms are currently not as recognized internationally as those abroad. Therefore, when astronomers publish papers or data, they default to submitting them to international platforms. (P8)

Societal factors concerning Chinese astronomers’ hesitations for ODS

The pressure from domestic data policies.

Five Chinese astronomers have mentioned that ODS is subject to the requirements of domestic data policies. Thus, they sense the pressure to conduct ODS. For example, P6 indicated that many astronomy projects in China were government-funded and required data sharing and submission conforming to government regulations as the priority.

Chinese telescopes are primarily funded by the government, as researchers have not yet had the ability to build a telescope on their own. The entire Chinese population is considered one collective, while those non-Chinese are another. The Chinese government aims to promote ODS to data generated by projects funded by public funds. If researchers have not submitted research data to the government-delegated data center, it could potentially impact their subsequent research project approval. By contrast, some foreign telescopes are built by private institutions and may not have the option for ODS. (P6).

Another astronomer, P3, proposed that Chinese mandatory data policies prompt the ODS scale. However, complicated troubles remained.

Our data policies are mandatory, especially for projects funded by national grants. That is, if you don’t conduct ODS, your projects may not be accepted. The volume of ODS is rising consequently. However, the issues related to ODS still need to improve, such as the Chinese astronomers’ initiative willing to ODS is weak, and [sometimes] their open data cannot be reused. There is a need further to investigate Chinese researchers’ [ODS] behaviors, particularly to find the stimulations for them to conduct ODS proactively. (P3)

Besides, three Chinese astronomers shared that the traditional funding source in astronomy also motivated their ODS. P8 explained:

In China, astronomical data [from national telescopes] is mostly institutional and collective. One can apply to use a telescope at a particular institution to obtain astronomical data. The applications may receive different priorities, but the data is not privately owned. (P8)

P8 meant that Chinese astronomers relied on large telescope projects funded by the government. Consequently, the ownership of their observed data belongs to the collective astronomical community in China rather than individual astronomers or research teams.

The language prerequisite in astronomy

Three astronomers have also introduced the issue of a language prerequisite in scientific communication. For example, P12 explained:

[Modern] astronomy predominantly originated from developed nations. Consequently, our conferences, data, and textbooks are primarily in English. However, this can be a barrier for young Chinese astronomers who are not proficient in English. At least among the researchers around me, everyone contends that English is a necessary prerequisite for entering the field of astronomy. That is to say, the entry barrier for astronomy is very high. I termed it “aristocratic science” because it is difficult to conduct astronomical research without good equipment, proficient English, or substantial funding. (P12)

Another astronomer, P9, dismissed astronomical journals in Chinese because these journals would not be acknowledged in the international astronomy community:

I believe English is a strict prerequisite in astronomy. If your English is poor, you may be restricted from engaging in ODS communication. I support [the slogan] publishing in Chinese to enhance Chinese scholars’ international influence, but most astronomical research originates from the West and is primarily dominated by Western institutions. Besides that, domestic journals are not valuable enough for academic evaluation or promotion due to their low influence factor. (P9)

Finally, P13 added that if Chinese astronomers always use English in ODS, it might potentially clash with the academic discourse system in China.

Some people may wonder why, as Chinese researchers, we need to use English to communicate our work. From my personal perspective, of course, I fully support promoting our research discourse system using Chinese as the primary language. However, from a [scientific] communication standpoint, there are times when we need to collaborate with foreign astronomers or improve communication efficiency [in English]. (P13)

The awareness of a competitive environment

Four Chinese astronomers have expressed concerns about ODS due to the highly competitive scientific community to which they belong. For example, P14 stated:

The field we are currently working in is highly competitive, so we need to consider protecting our team’s efforts. If we release the data, there is a possibility that other researchers using more advanced software tools could publish their findings before us. (P14)

Another astronomer, P12, remarked that this competitive atmosphere varies depending on the research directions. He said:

Competition is inevitable but varies across research areas. I engaged in two research areas. One is characterized by intense competition, but the other is more friendly. The highly competitive research area has many researchers pursuing high-quality data and tackling cutting-edge topics. Sometimes, competing with those who publish first or faster becomes necessary. In addition, one kind of “Nei Juan” may exist, which is competing to see who can open data faster. Because the faster your proposal is promised, the sooner your observation project will be approved. (P12)

“Nei Juan” (a.k.a. involution) manifests a fierce but often unfruitful competition to catch up with colleagues, peers, and generations (Li, 2021 ). P12 acknowledged the competitive environment that would push him to publish first or faster but also regarded “Nei Juan” as not always bad for ODS. Still, P9 considered that the “Nei Juan” issue may arise because Chinese astronomers want to catch up with the international astronomical development phase.

Generally speaking, astronomy is relatively less “Nei Juan” compared to other disciplines. However, its rapid development has begun to become more intense. Particularly, Chinese astronomy is in a phase of catching up, characterized by a collaborative yet competitive atmosphere with the international community. Our national astronomical teams, as a collective, are exerting great efforts to excel in some major projects compared to their foreign counterparts, engaging in strenuous research endeavors. (P9)

However, another astronomer, P11, regarded that ODS meant not “the sooner, the better.” P11 argued:

Some data may have been obtained through instrument testing, and its quality is not particularly high, resulting in lower reliability. If it is made openly accessible immediately, users may not obtain accurate results. Besides, the raw data may contain variances or noises originating from different instruments, requiring standardized processing through software to transform it into [reliable] data products. Only then can scientific users and the public truly benefit from this data. (P11)

The interpretation of Chinese astronomers’ ODS motivations and behaviors

Chinese astronomers’ motivations and behaviors in ODS can be interpreted threefold. First, a few Chinese astronomers’ obedience to ODS is traditional. They value the tradition of ODS in astronomy and contend that it should be respected and obeyed as an intrinsic duty (Heuritsch, 2023 ). Also, they acknowledge the value of astronomical ODS practices for scientific research and the whole scientific community, which makes them devote themselves to such practices (e.g., P8, P12). Hence, for them, extrinsic principles (e.g., FAIR), policies (e.g., those from the Chinese government), or individual research outputs do not determine their ODS decisions and behaviors. As P11 said, he had learned and obeyed this tradition since he entered the field of astronomy. This finding in China corroborates Stahlman’s prior research, indicating that astronomers have a strong sense of duty to their research communities and the public (Stahlman, 2022 ). Still, we found it impressive because these Chinese astronomers adhere to ODS traditions, dismissing the government slogan “Write your paper on the motherland,” which is rare in other research disciplines (including ours) in China.

Second, many Chinese astronomers would evaluate the consequences of ODS. One evaluation lens is self-interest. For example, several Chinese astronomers (e.g., P6, P12) have pointed out that ODS can potentially increase individual research outputs and their academic reputation, which motivates them to do it. It is noteworthy that some Chinese astronomers increase research outputs through ODS, both in terms of their personal contributions and for the entire astronomy community. Their evaluation priority is their own data/paper citation over ODS practices. Another evaluation lens is reciprocity. Some Chinese astronomers (e.g., P1, P10) perceive that the data sharer and user roles in ODS among astronomers can be exchanged. An open data sharer can become a user, and vice versa, in different research projects and times. As P10 mentioned, many Chinese astronomers have received the benefits of ODS from other astronomers when they lacked data or resources. As a result, they aspire to contribute to the community by providing opportunities and resources for fellow astronomers who face challenges similar to those they did previously. Thus, they adopt ODS in a respectful manner, hoping to receive the same treatment in the future. Abele-Brehm et al.’s study has revealed that researchers tended to conduct ODS out of reward promises (Abele-Brehm et al., 2019 ). Our findings complement it by differentiating self-interest-oriented and reciprocity-oriented rewards from ODS.

Third, some Chinese astronomers’ choice of ODS can be interpreted as contractual. Without ODS, they cannot receive government funding or get their research proposal accepted, which may impede their research progress and contribution. This finding corroborates Zuiderwijk and Spiers’ research, highlighting the significance of resource constraints and individual expectations benefits, which they could get extra citation or potential collaboration opportunities as essential motivators for ODS in astronomy (Zuiderwijk and Spiers, 2019 ). Furthermore, the development of modern astronomy in China is relatively retarded compared to the U.S. or European counterparts. The Chinese government sponsors most astronomical projects with public funding, hoping to enhance Chinese astronomy through centralized power and resources. For example, in 2018, the Chinese government implemented a scientific data management policy mandating the sharing of research data generated by public funding (General Office of the State Council of China, 2018 ). Thus, Chinese astronomers in contract with government-funded telescopes must enact ODS.

The societal barriers to Chinese astronomers’ ODS practices

We identified a few societal barriers to Chinese astronomers’ ODS practices. First, insufficient data rights protection during ODS may hinder Chinese astronomers’ enthusiasm or trust in conducting ODS. For example, P6 has raised the concern that some astronomical data policies are typically formulated by scientific alliances and only bind members within project teams. Thus, astronomers who do not belong to these alliances do not need to obey these policies. Moreover, P10 and P14 both complained that though they had contributed much data, time, and effort, some global ODS practices relied on verbal agreements, which often lacked enforcement and easily compromised their data rights in an international project. This insufficient protection of data rights may give rise to conflicts of interest among collaborating parties, discouraging subsequent data-sharing practices among Chinese astronomers.

Second, a data infrastructure that is weak in its usability and accessibility may deter some Chinese astronomers from choosing ODS. As P8 remarked, Chinese open research data infrastructures have not been well developed regarding data usability and accessibility, which pushes domestic astronomers to publish data via foreign open research platforms. This concern partly reflects the reality of the underdevelopment of data infrastructure in China, indicating that most of China’s domestic research data repositories have yet to establish licenses, privacy, and copyright guidelines. (Li et al., 2022 ).

Additionally, we found that a highly competitive environment could potentially trigger “Nei Juan” related to competing for publication priority, which could also affect Chinese astronomers’ ODS attitudes and behaviors. Specifically, the increasing emphasis on academic performance has led many Chinese researchers into a “weird circle” of self-imposed pressure to publish papers continuously. This phenomenon is exacerbated by the tenure system in top Chinese universities, which has significantly shaped researchers’ academic work and day-to-day practices (Xu and Poole, 2023 ). Thus, within the intensely competitive scientific landscape and the dominant evaluation system for paper publications, Chinese astronomers may potentially prioritize rapid paper publication over ODS because when scientific resources and academic promotions are scarce, data is invaluable to a researcher. As implied in P14’s quote, some Chinese astronomers may delay or opt out of ODS unless their data rights and research benefits can be ensured.

Two dimensions in the action strategies in Chinese astronomers’ choices for ODS

Apart from the individual and societal factors that motivate or deter Chinese astronomers’ OBS behaviors, we have identified two dimensions in the action strategies that influence their choice of ODS. These two dimensions are presented and interpreted in Table 3 .

First, some Chinese astronomers hesitated to ODS because they had to choose between domestic customs and international traditions in astronomy, which might influence or even determine some Chinese astronomers’ behaviors concerning ODS. For example, several Chinese astronomers (e.g., P11, P13) prioritized compliance with domestic policies over international ones in determining where and how to implement ODS (Zhang et al., 2023). Besides, as explained by P4, almost all Chinese astronomers receive national funding, which would influence their ODS behaviors due to national funding agencies’ requirements for project commitment and applications. China’s “dual track” approach emphasizing data openness and national security simultaneously requires researchers to obey the “Openness as the normal and non-openness as the exception” principle (Li et al., 2022 ). Meanwhile, open data governance and open data movement have gradually impacted government policies as various national security and personal privacy issues are emerging (Arzberger et al., 2004 ). Despite this, ODS policies or concerns about national security and personal privacy may not be suitable for astronomy because astronomy rarely involves security and privacy issues (as highlighted by P9 and P12). As the discrepancy between domestic and international policy environments widens, choosing different norms may pressure Chinese astronomers’ ODS behaviors.

Second, we found some ethical problems related to ODS from the language prerequisite or preference in Chinese astronomy. As mentioned by P12, language has become an entrance bar in Chinese astronomy because astronomy is sort of “aristocratic science” in the sense that English proficiency is a prerequisite for anyone or any institution that wants to participate in astronomy research and practices seriously. Consequently, there is no comparable citizen science project in China to Galaxy Zoo or Zooniverse in the U.S., and local or private colleges in China cannot afford to establish astronomy as a scientific discipline in their institutions because many people in Chinese citizen science projects or below-the-top institutions are not proficient in English. Related to it, as mentioned by P9, domestic journals about astronomy in China are unanimously regarded as inferior and not valuable enough for academic evaluation or promotion. This phenomenon in Chinese astronomy is distinctive from the other research disciplines in China, where domestic journals are not “biased” based on publication language.

Third, domestic astronomy projects obeying international propriety data period policies may exert extra pressure or restraint on Chinese astronomers to conduct ODS. For example, the LAMOST and FAST projects in China follow international conventions in setting their propriety data period and ODS policies in English. As a result, Chinese astronomers who are poor in English would confront logistic hindrances in harnessing these domestic astronomy projects to share their data, ideas, and publications in Chinese. If they want to implement international ODS via LAMOST or FAST, they must spend extra time, effort, or funding translating their data and ideas into English, which may affect their time and resource allocation in the other research activities within the proprietary data period, such as ODS. Hence, we surmise that this language obstacle for some Chinese astronomers could demotivate or discourage them from ODS.

Fourth, some Chinese astronomers may choose between personal development and scientific advancement regarding ODS. First, it may be due to the adverse effects of the Chinese academic promotion system on some astronomers. In China, universities and research institutions typically use publication lists to evaluate academic performance and promotion (Cyranoski, 2018 ). As P14 mentioned, competition for research publication has been growing in some areas of astronomy (e.g., burst source). Some Chinese astronomers may withhold ODS to prioritize their data rights and timely publication. It may also be interpreted by a prevalent phenomenon in the Chinese academy nowadays called “Nei Juan.” Consequently, some Chinese scholars, including astronomers, are pushed to be competitive or “selfish” to increase their research publications, citation metrics, funding opportunities, and data rights. Prior works have found that researchers’ data-sharing willingness tends to be low when perceived competition is high (Acciai et al., 2023 ; Thursby et al., 2018 ), and researchers’ intrinsic motivation gradually weakens when researchers’ organizations implement accountability measures (such as contract signing) and increasingly pursue performance-oriented academic research (Gu and Levin, 2021 ). These findings may also explain some Chinese astronomers’ hesitation about ODS.

Last but not least, astronomy is highly international, and ODS can encourage collaboration among astronomers from different countries. Nevertheless, as mentioned by P7, some collaborators may compromise their promises for data use, which disincentivizes data sharers’ willingness for continuous ODS. Astronomers, through the joint observations of multiple telescopes, can collectively identify the underlying reasons behind astronomical phenomena and thereby promote scientific advancement. However, with the impact of “Nei Juan” and the limitations of verbal commitments, some Chinese astronomers may find it challenging to choose between ODS and prioritizing their academic interests.

Conclusion and implications for future research

Many astronomers in Western countries may have taken ODS for granted to enhance astronomical discoveries and productivity. However, how strong such an assumption holds among Chinese astronomers has not been investigated or deliberated extensively. This may hinder international ODS with Chinese astronomers and lead to a misunderstanding of Chinese astronomers’ perceptions and practices of ODS. Thus, in this paper, we reported our findings from 14 semi-structured interviews and 136 open-ended survey responses with Chinese astronomers about their motivations and hesitations regarding ODS. Our study found that many Chinese astronomers regarded ODS as an international and established duty to obey or reciprocity to harness. However, some Chinese astronomers would also agonize about ODS for data rights concerns, usable and accessible data infrastructure preferences, and “Nei Juan” or academic promotion pressures. Synthesizing these findings, we summarize them as Chinese astronomers’ concerns and choices between domestic customs and international traditions in ODS. Despite the findings, our research has several limitations. First, we still need more data to test and generalize our findings about ODS to Chinese scholars in other disciplines. Second, we have not conducted a comparative analysis of perceptions, concerns, and behavioral differences among astronomers in other countries. In the future, we intend to address this gap by conducting a global study to provide a more comprehensive understanding of ODS in science.

Our research has several implications for future work. First, we advocate for empathy and compromise between domestic customs and international traditions in Chinese astronomy. Undoubtedly, developed and English-speaking countries have been dominant in science and research paradigms for a long time. On the positive side, such dominance has established various traditions, such as ODS in astronomy, which are respected and obeyed by many scholars worldwide, such as many astronomers in China. On the negative side, such long-standing scientific dominance may trigger a developing country’s domestic countermeasures or competing policies, which can agonize some domestic researchers and impede global ODS. For example, as we have revealed, some Chinese astronomers had regarded astronomy as an “aristocratic science” and screened out Chinese astronomers or citizen science participants who were not proficient in English. Future research can investigate further the power dynamics between international traditions and domestic customs in other cultures or research disciplines beyond ODS in astronomy.

Second, we suggest that the international astronomy community publish more inclusive ODS rules that consider the societal contexts of researchers from different countries with different cultural or language backgrounds. Efforts should be made to minimize the reinforcement of one’s dominant position in scientific research through ODS, and to develop more inclusive, sustainable, and equitable rules that appeal to more advantaged countries to join. This may be achieved by providing different languages of ODS platforms, translation assistance to draft collaboration agreements, and multiple options for international collaboration and communication among astronomers from different countries. In this regard, the CARE (Collective benefits, Authority to control, Responsibility, and Ethics) principles serve as a good example (Global Indigenous Data Alliance, 2019 ). Also, we propose that the Chinese government, academic institutions, and funding agencies be more globally leading and open-minded to stimulate ODS, not merely within the border but endeavor to become a global leader or at least an essential stakeholder to promote knowledge sharing and scientific collaboration.

Third, our research findings indicate that individual ethical perspectives among astronomers play a significant role in guiding their ODS practices. To start, reciprocity effectively enhances ODS regardless of the established or domestic research policies. Thus, we suggest that policymakers in China consider emphasizing more on the reciprocity benefits and build a collaborative effort across the scientific community. As the qualitative data from our findings revealed, collaboration benefits from ODS are highly motivating for Chinese astronomers. Still, we have identified concerns among Chinese astronomers. For instance, they have highlighted concerns about the limitations of verbal commitments for ODS within the proprietary data period, potentially engendering “free-riders” in research. Further, we noticed that some Chinese astronomers conduct ODS based on their respect for this tradition and obey it as their duty without considering external factors such as individual interests or community benefits. We posit that this ethical perspective is aligned with deontology. Therefore, we suggest that stakeholders of ODS, such as the scientific community, research institutions and organizations, and ODS platform developers, could propose specific norms or mottos regarding the ODS tradition in astronomy to stimulate astronomers’ voluntary sense of duty to conduct it.

Finally, since we found that some astronomers conducted ODS primarily for self-interests in academia, efforts should be made to ensure that the rights of researchers in astronomy are protected and that they do not bear any risks caused by others (e.g., data misuse, verbal breach of contract). Future research can administer surveys or experiments to explore how significantly these individual factors impact astronomers’ ODS behaviors.

Data availability

The complete translated and transcribed data from our study is available at Peking University Open Research Data ( https://doi.org/10.18170/DVN/JLJGPF ).

Abele-Brehm AE, Gollwitzer M, Steinberg U, Schönbrodt FD (2019) Attitudes toward open science and public data sharing. Soc Psychol 50(4):252–260. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335/a000384

Article   Google Scholar  

Acciai C, Schneider JW, Nielsen MW (2023) Estimating social bias in data sharing behaviours: an open science experiment. Sci Data 10(1):233. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-023-02129-8

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Anane-Sarpong E, Wangmo T, Tanner M (2020) Ethical principles for promoting health research data sharing with sub-Saharan Africa. Dev World Bioeth 20(2):86–95. https://doi.org/10.1111/dewb.12233

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Anane‐Sarpong E, Wangmo T, Ward CL, Sankoh O, Tanner M, Elger BS (2018) You cannot collect data using your own resources and put It on open access”: perspectives from Africa about public health data‐sharing. Dev World Bioeth 18(4):394–405. https://doi.org/10.1111/dewb.12159

Arzberger P, Schroeder P, Beaulieu A, Bowker G, Casey K, Laaksonen L, Moorman D, Uhlir P, Wouters P (2004) Promoting access to public research data for scientific, economic, and social development. Data Sci J 3:135–152. https://doi.org/10.2481/dsj.3.135

Banks GC, Field JG, Oswald FL, O'Boyle EH, Landis RS, Rupp DE, Rogelberg SG (2019) Answers to 18 Questions About Open Science Practices. J Bus Psychol 34:257–270. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-018-9547-8

Bezuidenhout L, Chakauya E (2018) Hidden concerns of sharing research data by low/middle-income country scientists. Glob Bioeth 29(1):39–54. https://doi.org/10.1080/11287462.2018.1441780

Boeckhout M, Zielhuis GA, Bredenoord AL (2018) The FAIR guiding principles for data stewardship: fair enough? Eur J Hum Genet 26(7):931–936. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41431-018-0160-0

Borgman CL, Wofford MF, Golshan MS, Darch PT (2021) Collaborative qualitative research at scale: Reflections on 20 years of acquiring global data and making data global. J Assoc Inf Sci Technol 72(6):667–682. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24439

Braun V, Clarke V (2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol 3(2):77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

Cyranoski D (2018) China awaits controversial blacklist of ‘poor quality’ journals. Nature 562(7728):471–472. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-018-07025-5

Article   ADS   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Deil C, Boisson C, Kosack K, Perkins J, King J, Eger P, … & Lombardi S (2017, January) Open high-level data formats and software for gamma-ray astronomy. In AIP Conference Proceedings (Vol. 1792, No. 1). AIP Publishing

Digital Science, Hahnel M, Smith G, Schoenenberger H, Scaplehorn N, Day L (2024) The State of Open Data 2023 (Version 1). Digital Science. available at: https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.24428194.v1 . Accessed 10 March 2024

Dorch BF, Drachen TM, Ellegaard O (2015) The data sharing advantage in astrophysics. Proc Int Astron Union 11(A29A):172–175. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1743921316002696

Enwald H, Grigas V, Rudzioniene J, Kortelainen T (2022) Data sharing practices in open access mode: a study of the willingness to share data in different disciplines. Inform Res Int Electron J 27. https://doi.org/10.47989/irpaper932

Fox J, Pearce KE, Massanari AL, Riles JM, Szulc Ł, Ranjit YS, Gonzales LA (2021) Open science, closed doors? Countering marginalization through an agenda for ethical, inclusive research in communication. J Commun 71(5):764–784. https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqab029

General Office of the State Council of China (2018) “Scientific data management measures”, available at: http://www.gov.cn/home/2018-04/02/content_5279296.htm Accessed 11 June 2023

General Office of the State Council of China (2024) Opinions on building a more perfect system and mechanism for the market-oriented allocation of factors. available at: https://www.gov.cn/xinwen/2022-12/21/content_5732906.htm Accessed 15 March 2024

Genova F (2018) Data as a research infrastructure CDS, the Virtual Observatory, astronomy, and beyond. EPJ Web Conf 186:01001. https://doi.org/10.1051/epjconf/201818601001

Global Indigenous Data Alliance (2019) CARE Principles for Indigenous Data Governance. Available at: https://www.gida-global.org/care . Accessed 14 June 2024

Gray N, Mann RG, Morris D, Holliman M, Noddle K (2012) AstroDAbis: Annotations and cross-matches for remote catalogues. ASP Conf Ser 461:351–354. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1111.6116

Article   ADS   Google Scholar  

Gu J, Levin JS (2021) Tournament in academia: a comparative analysis of faculty evaluation systems in research universities in China and the USA. High Educ 81:897–915. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-020-00585-4

Guy LP, Bechtol K, Bellm E, Blum B, Graham ML, Ivezić Ž, … & Strauss M (2023) Rubin Observatory Plans for an Early Science Program. Available at: https://rtn-011.lsst.io/RTN-011.pdf Accessed 15 March 2024

Harris R, Baumann I (2015) Open data policies and satellite Earth observation. Space Policy 32:44–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spacepol.2015.01.001

Heuritsch J (2023) The evaluation gap in astronomy—explained through a rational choice framework. Publications 11(2):33. https://doi.org/10.3390/publications11020033

Houtkoop BL, Chambers C, Macleod M, Bishop DVM, Nichols TE, Wagenmakers E-J (2018) Data sharing in psychology: a survey on barriers and preconditions. Adv Methods Pract Psychol Sci 1(1):70–85. https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245917751886

Huang Y, Cox AM, Sbaffi L (2021) Research data management policy and practice in Chinese university libraries. J Assoc Inf Sci Technol 72:493–506. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24413

Jin WY, Peng M (2021) The effects of social perception on moral judgment. Front Psychol 11:557216. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.557216

Ju B, Kim Y (2019) The formation of research ethics for data sharing by biological scientists: an empirical analysis. Aslib J Inf Manag 71(5):583–600. https://doi.org/10.1108/AJIM-12-2018-0296

Kim Y, Zhang P (2015) Understanding data sharing behaviors of STEM researchers: The roles of attitudes, norms, and data repositories. Libr Inf Sci Res 37(3):189–200. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lisr.2015.04.006

Kim Y, Stanton JM (2016) Institutional and individual factors affecting scientists’ data-sharing behaviors: a multilevel analysis. J Assoc Inf Sci Technol 67(4):776–799. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23424

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Koribalski BS (2019) Open astronomy and big data science. Proc Int Astron Union 15(S367):227–230. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1743921321000879

Kurata K, Matsubayashi M, Mine S (2017) Identifying the complex position of research data and data sharing among researchers in natural science. Sage Open 7(3):2158244017717301. https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440177173

Kurtz MJ, Eichhorn G, Accomazzi A, Grant C, Demleitner M, Murray SS (2004) Worldwide use and impact of the NASA Astrophysics Data System digital library. J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol 56(1):36–45. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.20095

Lamprecht AL, Garcia L, Kuzak M, Martinez C, Arcila R, Martin Del Pico E, Dominguez Del Angel V, Van De Sandt S, Ison J, Martinez PA (2020) Towards FAIR principles for research software. Data Sci 3(1):37–59. https://doi.org/10.3233/DS-190026

Lee H, Reid E, Kim WG (2014) Understanding knowledge sharing in online travel communities: antecedents and the moderating effects of interaction modes. J Hospit Tour Res 38(2):222–242. https://doi.org/10.1177/1096348012451454

Lester DG, Martani A, Elger BS, Wangmo T (2021) Individual notions of fair data sharing from the perspectives of Swiss stakeholders. BMC Health Serv Res 21:1–12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-021-06906-2

Li M (2021) “Nei Juan” in exam-oriented education in China. J Lit Art Stud 11(12):1028–1033. https://doi.org/10.17265/2159-5836/2021.12.015

Li C, Zhou Y, Zheng X, Zhang Z, Jiang L, Li Z, Wang P, Li J, Xu S, Wang Z (2022) Tracing the footsteps of open research data in China. Learn Publ 35:46–55. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1439

Liu J (2021) Data Ethics Behaviors and Norms of Researchers [Master, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences]. Available at: https://d.wanfangdata.com.cn/thesis/ChJUaGVzaXNOZXdTMjAyMzAxMTISCFkzODY0MDg4GghidjYyajZyNQ%3D%3D Accessed 11 March 2024

Pasquetto IV, Sands AE, Darch PT, Borgman CL (2016) Open Data in Scientific Settings: From Policy to Practice Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, San Jose, California, USA. https://doi.org/10.1145/2858036.2858543

Pepe A, Goodman A, Muench A, Crosas M, Erdmann C (2014) How do astronomers share data? Reliability and persistence of datasets linked in AAS publications and a qualitative study of data practices among US astronomers. PLoS One 9(8):e104798. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0104798

Article   ADS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Popkin G (2019) Data sharing and how it can benefit your scientific career. Nature 569(7756):445–447. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-019-01506-x

Rebull LM (2022) Real astronomy data for anyone: explore NASA’s IRSA. Phys Teach 60(1):72–73. https://doi.org/10.1119/10.0009117

Reichman OJ, Jones MB, Schildhauer MP (2011) Challenges and opportunities of open data in ecology. Science 331(6018):703–705. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1197962 . PMID: 21311007

Sayogo DS, Pardo TA (2013) Exploring the determinants of scientific data sharing: Understanding the motivation to publish research data. Gov Inf Q 30:S19–S31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2012.06.011

Science Data Bank (2024) Subject distribution of dataset published in Science Data Bank Available at: https://www.scidb.cn/en/list?searchList/ordernum=1 Accessed 24 March 2024

Serwadda D, Ndebele P, Grabowski MK, Bajunirwe F, Wanyenze RK (2018) Open data sharing and the Global South—Who benefits? Science 359(6376):642–643. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aap8395

Stamm K, Lin L, Christidis P (2017) Career stages of health service psychologists. American Psychological Association Center for Workforce, Washington, DC. Available at: https://www.apa.org/workforce/publications/15-health-service-career/ Accessed 24 March 2024

Stahlman GR (2022) From nostalgia to knowledge: considering the personal dimensions of data lifecycles. J Assoc Inf Sci Technol 73(12):1692–1705. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24687

Tolle KM, Tansley DSW, Hey AJ (2011) The fourth paradigm: data-intensive scientific discovery. Proc IEEE 99(8):1334–1337. https://doi.org/10.1109/JPROC.2011.2155130

Thursby JG, Haeussler C, Thursby MC, Jiang L (2018) Prepublication disclosure of scientific results: Norms, competition, and commercial orientation. Sci Adv 4(5):eaar2133. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aar2133

Tu Z, Shen J (2023) Value of open research data: a systematic evaluation framework based on multi-stakeholder survey. Libr Inf Sci Res 45(4):101269. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lisr.2023.101269

UNESCO (2021) UNESCO Recommendation on Open Science. UNESCO General Conference. In: France. https://doi.org/10.54677/MNMH8546

UK Research and Innovation (2016) Concordat on open research data. Available at: https://www.ukri.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/UKRI-020920-ConcordatonOpenResearchData.pdf . Accessed 23 March 2024

van Gend T, Zuiderwijk A (2023) Open research data: a case study into institutional and infrastructural arrangements to stimulate open research data sharing and reuse. J Librariansh Inf Sci 55(3):782–797. https://doi.org/10.1177/09610006221101200

Walsh CG, Xia W, Li M, Denny JC, Harris PA, Malin BA (2018) Enabling open-science initiatives in clinical psychology and psychiatry without sacrificing patients’ privacy: current practices and future challenges. Adv Methods Pract Psychol Sci 1(1):104–114. https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245917749652

Wang S, Kinoshita S, Yokoyama HM (2024) Write your paper on the motherland? Account Res 1–3. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2024.2347398

Wilkinson MD, Dumontier M, Aalbersberg IJ, Appleton G, Axton M, Baak A, Blomberg N, Boiten J-W, da Silva Santos LB, Bourne PE (2016) The FAIR Guiding Principles for scientific data management and stewardship. Sci Data 3(1):1–9. https://doi.org/10.1038/sdata.2016.18

Xu J, Chen D, He C, Zeng Y, Nicholas D, Wang Z (2020) How are the new wave of Chinese researchers shaping up in scholarly communication terms? Malays J Libr Inf Sci 25(3):49–70. https://doi.org/10.22452/mjlis.vol25no3.4

Xu W, Poole A (2023) ‘Academics without publications are just like imperial concubines without sons’: the ‘new times’ of Chinese higher education. J Educ Policy 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680939.2023.2288339

Zhang X, Reindl S, Tian H, Gou M, Song R, Zhao T, Jandrić P (2022) Open science in China: openness, economy, freedom & innovation. Educ Philos Theory 55(4):432–445. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2022.2122440

Zhang L, Downs RR, Li J, Wen L, Li C (2021) A review of open research data policies and practices in China. Data Sci J. https://doi.org/10.5334/dsj-2021-003

Zuiderwijk A, Spiers H (2019) Sharing and re-using open data: a case study of motivations in astrophysics. Int J Inf Manag 49:228–241. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2019.05.024

Zuiderwijk A, Türk BO, Brazier F (2024) Identifying the most important facilitators of open research data sharing and reuse in Epidemiology: a mixed-methods study. PloS One 19(2):e0297969. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0297969

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge the support of the Beijing Municipal Social Science Foundation under Grant [No. 22ZXC008].

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Information Management, Peking University, Beijing, China

Jinya Liu & Huichuan Xia

National Science Library, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China

Kunhua Zhao & Liping Gu

Department of Information Resource Management, School of Economics and Management, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

JL: conceptualization, methodology, data collection, formal analysis, original draft, writing, and editing. KZ: review, data collection, and editing. LG: data collection; editing. HX: conceptualization; methodology; formal analysis; writing, editing, and paper finalization.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Huichuan Xia .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Ethical approval

This study was reviewed and approved by the Institutional Review Board of the Institute of Psychology, Chinese Academy of Sciences. All methods were carried out following the relevant guidelines and regulations. The ethical approval number of this study is H23162.

Informed consent

Informed consent is a critical part of ensuring that participants are fully aware of the nature of the research and their involvement in it. Thus, our informed consent involves adequate information about the purpose of the research, methods of participant involvement, the intended use of the results, rights as a participant, and any potential risks that were provided to the participants. Before we began our interviews, we clearly explained the content of our informed consent form to our participants, provided them with ample time to read it, and thoroughly addressed any questions they had regarding the informed consent form. All participants had carefully read and agreed to an informed consent.

Additional information

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

Supplementary information

Data set 1109, data set 1352, data set 37510, rights and permissions.

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

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Liu, J., Zhao, K., Gu, L. et al. To share or not to share, that is the question: a qualitative study of Chinese astronomers’ perceptions, practices, and hesitations about open data sharing. Humanit Soc Sci Commun 11 , 1063 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-03570-9

Download citation

Received : 16 November 2023

Accepted : 09 August 2024

Published : 22 August 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-03570-9

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

Information

• Author Services

Initiatives

You are accessing a machine-readable page. In order to be human-readable, please install an RSS reader.

All articles published by MDPI are made immediately available worldwide under an open access license. No special permission is required to reuse all or part of the article published by MDPI, including figures and tables. For articles published under an open access Creative Common CC BY license, any part of the article may be reused without permission provided that the original article is clearly cited. For more information, please refer to https://www.mdpi.com/openaccess .

Feature papers represent the most advanced research with significant potential for high impact in the field. A Feature Paper should be a substantial original Article that involves several techniques or approaches, provides an outlook for future research directions and describes possible research applications.

Feature papers are submitted upon individual invitation or recommendation by the scientific editors and must receive positive feedback from the reviewers.

Editor’s Choice articles are based on recommendations by the scientific editors of MDPI journals from around the world. Editors select a small number of articles recently published in the journal that they believe will be particularly interesting to readers, or important in the respective research area. The aim is to provide a snapshot of some of the most exciting work published in the various research areas of the journal.

Original Submission Date Received: .

• Active Journals
• Find a Journal
• Proceedings Series
• For Authors
• For Reviewers
• For Editors
• For Librarians
• For Publishers
• For Societies
• For Conference Organizers
• Open Access Policy
• Institutional Open Access Program
• Special Issues Guidelines
• Editorial Process
• Research and Publication Ethics
• Article Processing Charges
• Testimonials
• Preprints.org
• SciProfiles
• Encyclopedia

Article Menu

• Subscribe SciFeed
• Google Scholar
• on Google Scholar
• Table of Contents

Find support for a specific problem in the support section of our website.

Please let us know what you think of our products and services.

Visit our dedicated information section to learn more about MDPI.

JSmol Viewer

A systematic review of the impact of emerging technologies on student learning, engagement, and employability in built environment education.

1. Introduction

2. technology in education, 2.1. enhancing teaching methods and learning experience, 2.2. addressing industry demands and real-world applications, 2.3. improving employability and soft skills development, 2.4. research gaps, 3. research method, 3.1. the review process, 3.2. database and keywords, 3.3. study selection process with inclusion and exclusion criteria, 3.4. data analysis, 4. review results, 4.1. descriptive analysis, 4.2. thematic analysis, 4.2.1. commonly used technologies in be education, 4.2.2. enhancing student engagement through technology in be education, 4.2.3. improving learning outcomes with technology in be education, 4.2.4. enhancing employability skills through technology in be education, 4.2.5. challenges in implementing technologies in be education, 5. conclusions, 6. future research, 7. theoretical and practical implications, author contributions, data availability statement, conflicts of interest, nomenclature.

• Portella, A.A. Built environment. In Encyclopedia of Quality of Life and Well-Being Research , 1st ed.; Michalos, A.C., Ed.; Springer Science+Business Media: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2014; pp. 454–461. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kamalipour, H.; Peimani, N. Towards an Informal Turn in the Built Environment Education: Informality and Urban Design Pedagogy. Sustainability 2019 , 11 , 4163. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ndou, M.; Aigbavboa, C.O. A Theoretical Review of Ecological Economic Thinking amongst Professionals in the Built Environment. Procedia Manuf. 2017 , 7 , 523–528. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Opoku, A.; Guthrie, P. Education for sustainable development in the built environment. Int. J. Constr. Educ. Res. 2018 , 14 , 1–3. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Siriwardena, M.; Malalgoda, C.; Thayaparan, M.; Amaratunga, D.; Keraminiyage, K. Disaster resilient built environment: Role of lifelong learning and the implications for higher education. Int. J. Strateg. Prop. Manag. 2013 , 17 , 174–187. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ebekozien, A.; Aigbavboa, C.O.; Aliu, J.; Thwala, W.D. Generic Skills of Future Built Environment Practitioners in South Africa: Unexplored Mechanism Via Students’ Perception. J. Eng. Des. Technol. 2022 , 22 , 561–577. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hajirasouli, A.; Banihashemi, S.; Sanders, P.; Rahimian, F. BIM-enabled Virtual Reality (VR)-based Pedagogical Framework in Architectural Design Studios. Smart Sustain. Built Environ. 2023 . [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sami Ur Rehman, M.; Abouelkhier, N.; Shafiq, M.T. Exploring the Effectiveness of Immersive Virtual Reality for Project Scheduling in Construction Education. Buildings 2023 , 13 , 1123. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Abidoye, R.; Lim, B.T.H.; Lin, Y.C.; Ma, J. Equipping Property Graduates for the Digital Age. Sustainability 2022 , 14 , 640. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kahu, E.R.; Nelson, K. Student engagement in the educational interface: Understanding the mechanisms of student success. High. Educ. Res. Dev. 2018 , 37 , 58–71. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zhang, J.; Xie, H.; Schmidt, K.; Xia, B.; Li, H.; Skitmore, M. Integrated experiential learning–based framework to facilitate project planning in civil engineering and construction management courses. J. Prof. Issues Eng. Educ. Pract. 2019 , 145 , 05019005. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ruge, G.; McCormack, C. Building and construction students’ skills development for employability–reframing assessment for learning in discipline-specific contexts. Archit. Eng. Des. Manag. 2017 , 13 , 365–383. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bhoir, S.; Esmaeili, B. State-of-the-art Review of Virtual Reality Environment Applications in Construction Safety. AEI 2015 , 2015 , 457–468. [ Google Scholar ]
• Shirazi, A.; Behzadan, A.H. Content Delivery Using Augmented Reality to Enhance Students’ Performance in a Building Design and Assembly Project. Adv. Eng. Educ. 2015 , 4 , n3. [ Google Scholar ]
• Obi, N.I.; Obi JS, C.; Okeke, F.O.; Nnaemeka-Okeke, R.C. Pedagogical Challenges of Architectural Education in Nigeria; Study of Curriculum Contents and Physical Learning Environment. Eur. J. Sustain. Dev. 2022 , 11 , 32. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Rybakova, A.; Shcheglova, A.; Bogatov, D.; Alieva, L. Using interactive technologies and distance learning in sustainable education. E3S Web Conf. 2021 , 250 , 07003. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hayden, I. An evaluation of the design and use of applied visual interactive resources for teaching building regulations in higher education built environment programmes. Archit. Eng. Des. Manag. 2019 , 15 , 159–180. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Gledson, B.J.; Dawson, S. Use of simulation through BIM-enabled virtual projects to enhance learning and soft employability skills in architectural technology education. In Building Information Modelling, Building Performance, Design and Smart Construction ; Dastbaz, M., Gorse, C., Moncaster, A., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2017. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Al-Maskari, A.; Al Riyami, T.; Ghnimi, S. Factors affecting students’ preparedness for the fourth industrial revolution in higher education institutions. J. Appl. Res. High. Educ. 2022 , 16 , 246–264. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Gleason, N.W. Higher Education in the Era of the Fourth Industrial Revolution ; Springer Nature Palgrave Macmillan: Singapore, 2018; p. 229. [ Google Scholar ]
• AbuMezied, A. What Role Will Education Play in the Fourth Industrial Revolution. In World Economic Forum. 2016. Available online: https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/01/what-role-will-education-play-in-the-fourth-industrial-revolution (accessed on 12 August 2024).
• Shahroom, A.A.; Hussin, N. Industrial revolution 4.0 and education. Int. J. Acad. Res. Bus. Soc. Sci. 2018 , 8 , 314–319. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Oke, A.; Fernandes, F.A.P. Innovations in teaching and learning: Exploring the perceptions of the education sector on the 4th industrial revolution (4IR). J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2020 , 6 , 31. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Garzón, J.; Acevedo, J. Meta-analysis of the impact of Augmented Reality on students’ learning gains. Educ. Res. Rev. 2019 , 27 , 244–260. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Solnosky, R.; Parfitt, M.K.; Holland, R. Delivery methods for a multi-disciplinary architectural engineering capstone design course. Archit. Eng. Des. Manag. 2015 , 11 , 305–324. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Alizadehsalehi, S.; Hadavi, A.; Huang, J.C. Assessment of AEC students’ performance using BIM-into-VR. Appl. Sci. 2021 , 11 , 3225. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Spitzer, B.O.; Ma, J.H.; Erdogmus, E.; Kreimer, B.; Ryherd, E.; Diefes-Dux, H. Framework for the Use of Extended Reality Modalities in AEC Education. Buildings 2022 , 12 , 2169. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Vasilevski, N.; Birt, J. Analysing Construction Student Experiences of Mobile Mixed Reality Enhanced Learning in Virtual and Augmented Reality Environments. Res. Learn. Technol. 2020 , 28 . [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hajirasouli, A.; Banihashemi, S. Augmented Reality in Architecture and Construction Education: State of the Field and Opportunities. Int. J. Educ. Technol. High. Educ. 2022 , 19 , 39. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hussein, H.A.A. Integrating augmented reality technologies into architectural education: Application to the course of landscape design at Port Said University. Smart Sustain. Built Environ. 2023 , 12 , 721–741. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ibáñez, M.B.; Di Serio, Á.; Villarán, D.; Kloos, C.D. Experimenting with Electromagnetism Using Augmented Reality: Impact on Flow Student Experience and Educational Effectiveness. Comput. Educ. 2014 , 71 , 1–13. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Thompson, P. The Digital Natives as Learners: Technology Use Patterns and Approaches to Learning. Comput. Educ. 2013 , 65 , 12–33. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sánchez-Mena, A.; Martí-Parreño, J. Drivers and barriers to adopting gamification: Teachers’ perspectives. Electron. J. e-Learn. 2017 , 15 , 434–443. [ Google Scholar ]
• Diao, P.H.; Shih, N.J. Trends and Research Issues of Augmented Reality Studies in Architectural and Civil Engineering Education—A Review of Academic Journal Publications. Appl. Sci. 2019 , 9 , 1840. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ayer, S.K.; Messner, J.I.; Anumba, C.J. Augmented Reality Gaming in Sustainable Design Education. J. Archit. Eng. 2016 , 22 , 04015012. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Aguayo, C.; Cochrane, T.; Narayan, V. Key Themes in Mobile Learning: Prospects for Learner-generated Learning Through AR and VR. Australas. J. Educ. Technol. 2017 , 33 . [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sepasgozar, S.M. Digital Twin and Web-Based Virtual Gaming Technologies for Online Education: A Case of Construction Management and Engineering. Appl. Sci. 2020 , 10 , 4678. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Patil, K.R.; Ayer, S.K.; Wu, W.; London, J. Mixed Reality Multimedia Learning to Facilitate Learning Outcomes from Project Based Learning. In Construction Research Congress ; American Society of Civil Engineers: Reston, VA, USA, 2020; pp. 153–161. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kim, J.; Irizarry, J. Evaluating the Use of Augmented Reality Technology to Improve Construction Management Student’s Spatial Skills. Int. J. Constr. Educ. Res. 2021 , 17 , 99–116. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Noghabaei, M.; Heydarian, A.; Balali, V.; Han, K. Trend Analysis on Adoption of Virtual and Augmented Reality in the Architecture, Engineering, and Construction industry. Data 2020 , 5 , 26. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Cochrane, T.; Smart, F.; Narayan, V. Special Issue on Mobile Mixed Reality. Res. Learn. Technol. 2018 , 26 . [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ebekozien, A.; Aigbavboa, C.; Aliu, J. Built environment academics for 21st-century world of teaching: Stakeholders’ perspective. Int. J. Build. Pathol. Adapt. 2023 , 41 , 119–138. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Moghayedi, A.; Le Jeune, K.; Massyn, M.; Ekpo, C. Establishing the key elements of incorporation and outcomes of 4th industrial revolution in built environment education: A mixed bibliographic and bibliometric analysis. J. Constr. Proj. Manag. Innov. 2020 , 10 , 1–19. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Rennie, L.J.; Stocklmayer, S.; Gilbert, J.K. Supporting Self-Directed Learning in Science and Technology beyond the School Years ; Taylor & Francis: Abingdon, UK, 2019; p. 225. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ku, K.; Mahabaleshwarkar, P.S. Building Interactive Modeling for Construction Education in Virtual Worlds. 2011. Available online: http://hdl.handle.net/10919/92597 (accessed on 12 August 2024).
• Keenaghan, G.; Horváth, I. State of the Art of Using Virtual Reality Technologies in Built Environment Education. In Proceedings of the TMCE 2014, Budapest, Hungary, 19–23 May 2014. [ Google Scholar ]
• Tumpa, R.J.; Ahmad, T.; Naeni, L.M.; Kujala, J. Computer-based Games in Project Management Education: A Review. Proj. Leadersh. Soc. 2024 , 5 , 100130. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wang, L.H.; Chen, B.; Hwang, G.J.; Guan, J.Q.; Wang, Y.Q. Effects of digital game-based STEM education on students’ learning achievement: A meta-analysis. Int. J. STEM Educ. 2022 , 9 , 26. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Li, X.; Yi, W.; Chi, H.L.; Wang, X.; Chan, A.P. A critical review of virtual and augmented reality (VR/AR) applications in construction safety. Autom. Constr. 2018 , 86 , 150–162. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zhang, Y.; Liu, H.; Kang, S.C.; Al-Hussein, M. Virtual reality applications for the built environment: Research trends and opportunities. Autom. Constr. 2020 , 118 , 103311. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Skaik, S.; Tumpa, R.J. A case study of the practical implications of using interactive technology in teaching international postgraduate students. Contemp. Educ. Technol. 2021 , 14 , ep335. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Sampaio, A.Z.; Ferreira, M.M.; Rosário, D.P.; Martins, O.P. 3D and VR models in Civil Engineering education: Construction, rehabilitation and maintenance. Autom. Constr. 2010 , 19 , 819–828. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Repetto, C.; Serino, S.; Macedonia, M.; Riva, G. Virtual reality as an embodied tool to enhance episodic memory in elderly. Front. Psychol. 2016 , 7 , 214435. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Okada, Y.; Kaneko, K.; Shi, W. Web-based VR Education Contents Supporting VR-goggles and User Study. In Proceedings of the 31st International Conference on Computers in Education, ICCE 2023, Matsue, Japan, 4–8 December 2023; Asia-Pacific Society for Computers in Education: Taoyuan City, Taiwan, 2023; pp. 774–779. [ Google Scholar ]
• Young, B.; Ellobody, E.; Hu, T.W. 3D visualization of structures using finite-element analysis in teaching. J. Prof. Issues Eng. Educ. Pract. 2012 , 138 , 131–138. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Han, I. Immersive virtual field trips in education: A mixed-methods study on elementary students’ presence and perceived learning. Br. J. Educ. Technol. 2020 , 51 , 420–435. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lin, Y.J.; Wang, H.C. Using virtual reality to facilitate learners’ creative self-efficacy and intrinsic motivation in an EFL classroom. Educ. Inf. Technol. 2021 , 26 , 4487–4505. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Rahimian, F.P.; Ibrahim, R. Impacts of VR 3D sketching on novice designers’ spatial cognition in collaborative conceptual architectural design. Des. Stud. 2011 , 32 , 255–291. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Jin, R.; Yang, T.; Piroozfar, P.; Kang, B.G.; Wanatowski, D.; Hancock, C.M.; Tang, L. Project-based pedagogy in interdisciplinary building design adopting BIM. Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag. 2018 , 25 , 1376–1397. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Tumpa, R.J.; Skaik, S.; Ham, M.; Chaudhry, G. Authentic Design and Administration of Group-based Assessments to Improve the Job-readiness of Project Management Graduates. Sustainability 2022 , 14 , 9679. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Balogun, T.B. Built environment professionals’ perspective on digital technology skills. Educ. + Train. 2024 , 66 , 181–194. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Underwood, J.; Shelbourn, M. (Eds.) Handbook of Research on Driving Transformational Change in the Digital Built Environment ; IGI Global: London, UK, 2021. [ Google Scholar ]
• Leon, I.; Sagarna, M.; Mora, F.; Otaduy, J.P. BIM Application for Sustainable Teaching Environment and Solutions in the Context of COVID-19. Sustainability 2021 , 13 , 4746. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Tumpa, R.J.; Skaik, S.; Ham, M.; Chaudhry, G. Enhancing project management graduates’ employability through group assessment innovations: An empirical study. Proj. Leadersh. Soc. 2023 , 4 , 100084. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bai, X.; He, Y.; Kohlbacher, F. Older people’s adoption of e-learning services: A qualitative study of facilitators and barriers. Gerontol. Geriatr. Educ. 2020 , 41 , 291–307. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Papadonikolaki, E.; Krystallis, I.; Morgan, B. Digital technologies in built environment projects: Review and future directions. Proj. Manag. J. 2022 , 53 , 501–519. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sawhney, A.; Riley, M.; Irizarry, J. Construction 4.0: An Innovation Platform for the Built Environment ; Routledge: London, UK, 2020; ISBN 9780367027308. [ Google Scholar ]
• Fernandes, J.O.; Singh, B. Accreditation and ranking of higher education institutions (HEIs): Review, observations and recommendations for the Indian higher education system. TQM J. 2022 , 34 , 1013–1038. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Darwish, M.; Kamel, S.; Assem, A.M. A Theoretical Model of Using Extended Reality in Architecture Design Education. Eng. Res. J.-Fac. Eng. (Shoubra) 2023 , 52 , 36–45. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lu, Y. Teaching Architectural Technology Knowledge Using Virtual Reality Technology. Can. J. Learn. Technol. 2022 , 48 , 1–26. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lucas, J.; Gajjar, D. Influence of Virtual Reality on Student Learning in Undergraduate Construction Education. Int. J. Constr. Educ. Res. 2022 , 18 , 374–387. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Marinelli, M.; Male, S.A.; Valentine, A.; Guzzomi, A.; Van Der Veen, T.; Hassan, G.M. Using VR to Teach Safety in Design: What and How Do Engineering Students Learn? Eur. J. Eng. Educ. 2023 , 48 , 538–558. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Xiao, Y.; Watson, M. Guidance on Conducting a Systematic Literature Review. J. Plan. Educ. Res. 2017 , 39 , 93–112. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Rauniyar, S.; Awasthi, M.K.; Kapoor, S.; Mishra, A.K. Agritourism: Structured literature review and bibliometric analysis. Tour. Recreat. Res. 2021 , 46 , 52–70. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Gao, Y.; Gonzalez, V.A.; Yiu, T.W. The Effectiveness of Traditional Tools and Computer-aided Technologies for Health and Safety Training in the Construction Sector: A Systematic Review. Comput. Educ. 2019 , 138 , 101–115. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wen, J.; Gheisari, M. Using Virtual Reality to Facilitate Communication in the AEC Domain: A Systematic Review. Constr. Innov. 2020 , 20 , 509–542. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ummihusna, A.; Zairul, M. Exploring Immersive Learning Technology as Learning Tools in Experiential Learning for Architecture Design Education. Open House Int. 2022 , 47 , 605–619. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Liberati, A.; Altman, D.G.; Tetzlaff, J.; Mulrow, C.; Gøtzsche, P.C.; Ioannidis, J.P.; Clarke, M.; Devereaux, P.J.; Kleijnen, J.; Moher, D. The PRISMA Statement for Reporting Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses of Studies that Evaluate Health Care Interventions: Explanation and Elaboration. Ann. Intern. Med. 2009 , 151 , W-65–W-94. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Page, M.J.; McKenzie, J.E.; Bossuyt, P.M.; Boutron, I.; Hoffmann, T.C.; Mulrow, C.D.; Shamseer, L.; Tetzlaff, J.M.; Akl, E.A.; Brennan, S.E.; et al. The PRISMA 2020 Statement: An Updated Guideline for Reporting Systematic Reviews. Int. J. Surg. 2021 , 88 , 105906. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Benavides, L.M.C.; Tamayo Arias, J.A.; Arango Serna, M.D.; Branch Bedoya, J.W.; Burgos, D. Digital transformation in higher education institutions: A systematic literature review. Sensors 2020 , 20 , 3291. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Mukul, E.; Büyüközkan, G. Digital transformation in education: A systematic review of education 4.0. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2023 , 194 , 122664. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Cui, C.; Liu, Y.; Hope, A.; Wang, J. Review of Studies on the Public–Private Partnerships (PPP) for Infrastructure Projects. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2018 , 36 , 773–794. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zhang, S.; Chan, A.P.; Feng, Y.; Duan, H.; Ke, Y. Critical Review on PPP Research—A Search from the Chinese and International Journals. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2016 , 34 , 597–612. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Grimaldi, M.; Corvello, V.; De Mauro, A.; Scarmozzino, E. A systematic literature review on intangible assets and open innovation. Knowl. Manag. Res. Pract. 2017 , 15 , 90–100. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ghanbaripour, A.N.; Tumpa, R.J.; Sunindijo, R.Y.; Zhang, W.; Yousefian, P.; Camozzi, R.N.; Hon, C.; Talebian, N.; Liu, T.; Hemmati, M. Retention over attraction: A review of women’s experiences in the Australian construction industry; challenges and solutions. Buildings 2023 , 13 , 490. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Braun, V.; Clarke, V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual. Res. Psychol. 2006 , 3 , 77–101. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Beekhuyzen, J. Putting the pieces of the puzzle together: Using NVivo for a literature review. In Proceedings of the QualIT2007: Qualitative Research, From the Margins to the Mainstream, Wellington, New Zealand, 18–20 November 2007. [ Google Scholar ]
• King, S.; Boyer, J.; Bell, T.; Estapa, A. An Automated Virtual Reality Training System for Teacher-Student Interaction: A Randomized Controlled Trial. JMIR Serious Games 2022 , 10 , e41097. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Le, Q.T.; Pedro, A.; Park, C.S. A Social Virtual Reality Based Construction Safety Education System for Experiential Learning. J. Intell. Robot. Syst. 2015 , 79 , 487–506. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lotfi, Y.A.; Aly, T.F.; Sadek, R. Virtual Reality as A Tool to Enhance Students’ Perceptions of Architectural Historical Spaces. Eng. J. 2023 , 2 , 596–607. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Pham, H.C.; Dao, N.; Pedro, A.; Le, Q.T.; Hussain, R.; Cho, S.; Park, C.S.I.K. Virtual Field trip for Mobile Construction Safety Education Using 360-degree Panoramic Virtual Reality. Int. J. Eng. Educ. 2018 , 34 , 1174–1191. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ceylan, S. Using Virtual Reality to Improve Visual Recognition Skills of First Year Architecture Students: A Comparative Study. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Computer Supported Education (CSEDU), Prague, Czech Republic, 2–4 May 2020; Volume 2, pp. 54–63. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hendricks, D. Applications of Augmented Reality as a Blended Learning Tool for Architectural Education. Scholarsh. Teach. Learn. South 2022 , 6 , 79–94. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wolf, M.; Teizer, J.; Wolf, B.; Bükrü, S.; Solberg, A. Investigating Hazard Recognition in Augmented Virtuality for Personalized Feedback in Construction Safety Education and Training. Adv. Eng. Inform. 2022 , 51 , 101469. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Mastrolembo Ventura, S.; Castronovo, F.; Nikolić, D.; Ciribini, A. Implementation of Virtual Reality in Construction Education: A Content-Analysis Based Literature Review. J. Inf. Technol. Constr. 2022 , 27 , 705–731. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kuncoro, T.; Ichwanto, M.A.; Muhammad, D.F. VR-Based Learning Media of Earthquake-resistant Construction for Civil Engineering Students. Sustainability 2023 , 15 , 4282. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Mahat, N.; Azman, M.A.; Bohari, A.A.M.; Rashid, A.F.A.; Khamaksorn, A.; Abd, M.I. BC-DIGIT: A Digital Game Application for Learning Building Construction Technology Course among Undergraduate Students. Development 2022 , 11 , 467–473. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Lucas, J.D. Identifying learning objectives by seeking a balance between student and industry expectations for technology exposure in construction education. J. Prof. Issues Eng. Educ. Pract. 2017 , 143 , 05016013. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Xu, L.; Zhang, J.; Ding, Y.; Sun, G.; Zhang, W.; Philbin, S.P.; Guo, B.H. Assessing the Impact of Digital Education and the Role of the Big Data Analytics Course to Enhance the Skills and Employability of Engineering Students. Front. Psychol. 2022 , 13 , 974574. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Pugacheva, N.; Kirillova, T.; Kirillova, O.; Luchinina, A.; Korolyuk, I.; Lunev, A. Digital Paradigm in Educational Management: The Case of Construction Education Based on Emerging Technologies. Int. J. Emerg. Technol. Learn. 2020 , 15 , 96–115. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Landorf, C.; Ward, S. The Learning Impact of a 4-dimensional Digital Construction Learning Environment. Int. J. Educ. Pedagog. Sci. 2017 , 11 , 1266–1271. [ Google Scholar ]
• Pedro, A.; Le, Q.T.; Park, C.S. Framework for integrating safety into construction methods education through interactive virtual reality. J. Prof. Issues Eng. Educ. Pract. 2016 , 142 , 04015011. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Tan, Y.; Xu, W.; Li, S.; Chen, K. Augmented and Virtual Reality (AR/VR) for Education and Training in the AEC Industry: A Systematic Review of Research and Applications. Buildings 2022 , 12 , 1529. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Fauzi, A.F.A.A.; Ali, K.N.; Amirudin, R. Evaluating Students Readiness, Expectancy, Acceptance and Effectiveness of Augmented Reality Based Construction Technology Education. Int. J. Built Environ. Sustain. 2019 , 6 , 7–13. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kassem, M.; Benomran, L.; Teizer, J. Virtual Environments for Safety Learning in Construction and Engineering: Seeking Evidence and Identifying Gaps for Future Research. Vis. Eng. 2017 , 5 , 16. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Park, C.S.; Le, Q.T.; Pedro, A.; Lim, C.R. Interactive Building Anatomy Modeling for Experiential Building Construction Education. J. Prof. Issues Eng. Educ. Pract. 2016 , 142 , 04015019. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lasheen, R.; Khodeir, L.; Nessim, A. Identifying the Gap Between Practical and Educational Fields in the Egyptian AEC Industry in the Age of Digitalization. Eng. Res. J. 2022 , 176 , 281–303. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Mohamed, N.A.G.; Sadek, M.R. Artificial Intelligence as a Pedagogical Tool for Architectural Education: What Does the Empirical Evidence Tell Us? MSA Eng. J. 2023 , 2 , 133–148. [ Google Scholar ]
• Shanbari, H.A.; Blinn, N.M.; Issa, R.R. Laser Scanning Technology and BIM in Construction Management Education. J. Inf. Technol. Constr. 2016 , 21 , 204–217. [ Google Scholar ]
• Urban, H.; Pelikan, G.; Schranz, C. Augmented Reality in AEC Education: A Case Study. Buildings 2022 , 12 , 391. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Jacobsson, M.; Linderoth, H.C. Newly Graduated Students’ Role as Ambassadors for Digitalisation in Construction Firms. Constr. Manag. Econ. 2021 , 39 , 759–772. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kandi, V.R.; Castronovo, F.; Brittle, P.; Mastrolembo Ventura, S.; Nikolic, D. Assessing the Impact of a Construction Virtual Reality Game on Design Review Skills of Construction Students. J. Archit. Eng. 2020 , 26 , 04020035. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Vassigh, S.; Davis, D.; Behzadan, A.H.; Mostafavi, A.; Rashid, K.; Alhaffar, H.; Elias, A.; Gallardo, G. Teaching Building Sciences in Immersive Environments: A Prototype Design, Implementation, and Assessment. Int. J. Constr. Educ. Res. 2020 , 16 , 180–196. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Shojaei, A.; Rokooei, S.; Mahdavian, A.; Carson, L.; Ford, G. Using immersive video technology for construction management content delivery: Pilot study. J. Inf. Technol. Constr. 2021 , 26 , 886–901. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Baduge, S.K.; Thilakarathna, S.; Perera, J.S.; Arashpour, M.; Sharafi, P.; Teodosio, B.; Shringi, A.; Mendis, P. Artificial intelligence and smart vision for building and construction 4.0: Machine and deep learning methods and applications. Autom. Constr. 2022 , 141 , 104440. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zamora-Polo, F.; Luque Sendra, A.; Aguayo-Gonzalez, F.; Sanchez-Martin, J. Conceptual Framework for the Use of Building Information Modeling in Engineering Education. Int. J. Eng. Educ. 2019 , 35 , 744–755. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kraus, M.; Rust, R.; Rietschel, M.; Hall, D. Improved Perception of AEC Construction Details via Immersive Teaching in Virtual Reality. arXiv 2022 , arXiv:2209.10617. [ Google Scholar ]

Click here to enlarge figure

Share and Cite

Ghanbaripour, A.N.; Talebian, N.; Miller, D.; Tumpa, R.J.; Zhang, W.; Golmoradi, M.; Skitmore, M. A Systematic Review of the Impact of Emerging Technologies on Student Learning, Engagement, and Employability in Built Environment Education. Buildings 2024 , 14 , 2769. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings14092769

Ghanbaripour AN, Talebian N, Miller D, Tumpa RJ, Zhang W, Golmoradi M, Skitmore M. A Systematic Review of the Impact of Emerging Technologies on Student Learning, Engagement, and Employability in Built Environment Education. Buildings . 2024; 14(9):2769. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings14092769

Ghanbaripour, Amir Naser, Nima Talebian, Dane Miller, Roksana Jahan Tumpa, Weiwei Zhang, Mehdi Golmoradi, and Martin Skitmore. 2024. "A Systematic Review of the Impact of Emerging Technologies on Student Learning, Engagement, and Employability in Built Environment Education" Buildings 14, no. 9: 2769. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings14092769

Article Metrics

Article access statistics, further information, mdpi initiatives, follow mdpi.

Subscribe to receive issue release notifications and newsletters from MDPI journals