review of literature on hypothesis

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.

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

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.

Prevent plagiarism. Run a free check.

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 June 24, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/dissertation/literature-review/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

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

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

LITERATURE REVIEW AND HYPOTHESES

It is common to present the literature with supporting articles that are the foundation for your hypotheses—your tentative answer to the research questions stating the relationship between variables (what we already know supports what you believe your hypothesized results will be). Providing definitions of your conceptual variables is needed.

Your lit review should develop a theory. To make a contribution to the literature, your idea needs to be articulated, organized, and connected in a way that suggests new directions for researchers, fills a gap in the lit. Ideas are not a theory, regardless of how original they are. To be a theory, ideas have to be presented with a clear logic and causal relationship among the variables studied.

As stated in Chapter 6, Matching Publication Sources, be sure to match your literature review to that of your target journal. Use the same literature title heading and any subheadings commonly used in the target journal (literature review, conceptual framework, theoretical development and hypotheses, theory and hypotheses). Match paragraph lengths and writing level and format hypotheses exactly like in the target journal. The number of your references should be in the same range as other articles in your target journal, unless it is a very new topic with limited prior research. Again, cite articles from the target journal.

Here are some do’s and don’ts when writing your lit review.

• Keywords . Do use keywords when searching for the literature you will include in your review.
• Target journal . Do review and emulate the lit reviews of articles you cite, and match the target journal lit reviews. As stated, be sure to cite articles from the journal you will submit your work to.
• Hypotheses . Do format your hypotheses in the same way as the target journal articles (Chapter 6 Matching Publication Sources).
• Relevant . Do cite all the “relevant” articles that relate to your study. An article is not a dissertation, so don’t reference irrelevant articles.

The above is an excerpt of Dr. Lussier’s book, Publish Don’t Perish . More points for lit review, along with 170+ tips to get published are included.

15 Comments:

I just could not go away your site prior to suggesting that I extremely loved the usual info a person provide on your guests? Is gonna be again regularly in order to investigate cross-check new posts

Everything is very open with a really clear explanation of the issues. It was really informative. Your website is very helpful. Thank you for sharing!

Hi there,I read your new stuff named “LITERATURE REVIEW AND HYPOTHESES |” on a regular basis.Your humoristic style is awesome, keep doing what you’re doing! And you can look our website about proxy.

LITERATURE REVIEW AND HYPOTHESES | aiqsbvcnpq iqsbvcnpq http://www.g2499py76wcfvlm58936r27a36blobi5s.org/ [url=http://www.g2499py76wcfvlm58936r27a36blobi5s.org/]uiqsbvcnpq[/url]

I had a Springfield College student do an internship with me to develop the website

LITERATURE REVIEW AND HYPOTHESES | gdskmwvzgp http://www.g510m1752hjose40vwd9f300yo0q3z1os.org/ [url=http://www.g510m1752hjose40vwd9f300yo0q3z1os.org/]ugdskmwvzgp[/url] agdskmwvzgp

LITERATURE REVIEW AND HYPOTHESES | aqvhfxphfh [url=http://www.gr03x865dwpto35t0a18o1op942wog92s.org/]uqvhfxphfh[/url] qvhfxphfh http://www.gr03x865dwpto35t0a18o1op942wog92s.org/

There was no comment

Are you writing the articles in your website yourself or you outsource them? I am a blogger and having difficulty with content. Other bloggers told me I should use an AI content writer, they are actually pretty good. Here is a sample article some bloggers shared with me. Please let me know what your opinion on it and should I go ahead and use AI – https://sites.google.com/view/best-ai-content-writing-tools/home

I’m really not a good blogger. I used material from my Textbooks. Search Lussier on Amazon for my books.

If you are going for finest contents like me, only visit this web site every day because it gives feature contents, thanks

my web site tracfone special

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

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

Save my name, email, and site URL in my browser for next time I post a comment.

• USC Libraries
• Research Guides

Organizing Your Social Sciences Research Paper

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

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

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

Importance of a Good Literature Review

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

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

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

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

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

Types of Literature Reviews

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Structure and Writing Style

I.  Thinking About Your Literature Review

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

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

The critical evaluation of each work should consider :

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

II.  Development of the Literature Review

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

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

III.  Ways to Organize Your Literature Review

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

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

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

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

IV.  Writing Your Literature Review

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

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

V.  Common Mistakes to Avoid

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

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

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

Writing Tip

Break Out of Your Disciplinary Box!

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

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

Another Writing Tip

Don't Just Review for Content!

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

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

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

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

Yet Another Writing Tip

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

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

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

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

• << Previous: Theoretical Framework
• Next: Citation Tracking >>
• Last Updated: Jun 18, 2024 10:45 AM
• URL: https://libguides.usc.edu/writingguide

The Sheridan Libraries

• Write a Literature Review
• Sheridan Libraries
• Find This link opens in a new window
• Evaluate This link opens in a new window

What Will You Do Differently?

Please help your librarians by filling out this two-minute survey of today's class session..

Professor, this one's for you .

Introduction

Literature reviews take time. here is some general information to know before you start.  .

•  VIDEO -- This video is a great overview of the entire process.  (2020; North Carolina State University Libraries) --The transcript is included --This is for everyone; ignore the mention of "graduate students" --9.5 minutes, and every second is important  
• OVERVIEW -- Read this page from Purdue's OWL. It's not long, and gives some tips to fill in what you just learned from the video.  
• NOT A RESEARCH ARTICLE -- A literature review follows a different style, format, and structure from a research article.  

Steps to Completing a Literature Review

• Next: Find >>
• Last Updated: Sep 26, 2023 10:25 AM
• URL: https://guides.library.jhu.edu/lit-review

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

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

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

What are Literature Reviews?

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

Goals of Literature Reviews

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

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

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

What kinds of sources require a Literature Review?

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

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

Types of Literature Reviews

What kinds of literature reviews are written?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Literature Reviews in the Health Sciences

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

• 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.

Meryl Brodsky : Communication and Information Studies

Hannah Chapman Tripp : Biology, Neuroscience

Carolyn Cunningham : Human Development & Family Sciences, Psychology, Sociology

Larayne Dallas : Engineering

Janelle Hedstrom : Special Education, Curriculum & Instruction, Ed Leadership & Policy ​

Susan Macicak : Linguistics

Imelda Vetter : Dell Medical School

For help in other subject areas, please see the guide to library specialists by subject .

Periodically, UT Libraries runs a workshop covering the basics and library support for literature reviews. While we try to offer these once per academic year, we find providing the recording to be helpful to community members who have missed the session. Following is the most recent recording of the workshop, Conducting a Literature Review. To view the recording, a UT login is required.

• October 26, 2022 recording
• Last Updated: Jun 18, 2024 1:00 PM
• URL: https://guides.lib.utexas.edu/literaturereviews

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.

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 24 June 2024, from https://www.scribbr.co.uk/thesis-dissertation/literature-review/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

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

• Privacy Policy

Home » Literature Review – Types Writing Guide and Examples

Literature Review – Types Writing Guide and Examples

Table of Contents

Literature Review

Definition:

A literature review is a comprehensive and critical analysis of the existing literature on a particular topic or research question. It involves identifying, evaluating, and synthesizing relevant literature, including scholarly articles, books, and other sources, to provide a summary and critical assessment of what is known about the topic.

Types of Literature Review

Types of Literature Review are as follows:

• Narrative literature review : This type of review involves a comprehensive summary and critical analysis of the available literature on a particular topic or research question. It is often used as an introductory section of a research paper.
• Systematic literature review: This is a rigorous and structured review that follows a pre-defined protocol to identify, evaluate, and synthesize all relevant studies on a specific research question. It is often used in evidence-based practice and systematic reviews.
• Meta-analysis: This is a quantitative review that uses statistical methods to combine data from multiple studies to derive a summary effect size. It provides a more precise estimate of the overall effect than any individual study.
• Scoping review: This is a preliminary review that aims to map the existing literature on a broad topic area to identify research gaps and areas for further investigation.
• Critical literature review : This type of review evaluates the strengths and weaknesses of the existing literature on a particular topic or research question. It aims to provide a critical analysis of the literature and identify areas where further research is needed.
• Conceptual literature review: This review synthesizes and integrates theories and concepts from multiple sources to provide a new perspective on a particular topic. It aims to provide a theoretical framework for understanding a particular research question.
• Rapid literature review: This is a quick review that provides a snapshot of the current state of knowledge on a specific research question or topic. It is often used when time and resources are limited.
• Thematic literature review : This review identifies and analyzes common themes and patterns across a body of literature on a particular topic. It aims to provide a comprehensive overview of the literature and identify key themes and concepts.
• Realist literature review: This review is often used in social science research and aims to identify how and why certain interventions work in certain contexts. It takes into account the context and complexities of real-world situations.
• State-of-the-art literature review : This type of review provides an overview of the current state of knowledge in a particular field, highlighting the most recent and relevant research. It is often used in fields where knowledge is rapidly evolving, such as technology or medicine.
• Integrative literature review: This type of review synthesizes and integrates findings from multiple studies on a particular topic to identify patterns, themes, and gaps in the literature. It aims to provide a comprehensive understanding of the current state of knowledge on a particular topic.
• Umbrella literature review : This review is used to provide a broad overview of a large and diverse body of literature on a particular topic. It aims to identify common themes and patterns across different areas of research.
• Historical literature review: This type of review examines the historical development of research on a particular topic or research question. It aims to provide a historical context for understanding the current state of knowledge on a particular topic.
• Problem-oriented literature review : This review focuses on a specific problem or issue and examines the literature to identify potential solutions or interventions. It aims to provide practical recommendations for addressing a particular problem or issue.
• Mixed-methods literature review : This type of review combines quantitative and qualitative methods to synthesize and analyze the available literature on a particular topic. It aims to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the research question by combining different types of evidence.

Parts of Literature Review

Parts of a literature review are as follows:

Introduction

The introduction of a literature review typically provides background information on the research topic and why it is important. It outlines the objectives of the review, the research question or hypothesis, and the scope of the review.

Literature Search

This section outlines the search strategy and databases used to identify relevant literature. The search terms used, inclusion and exclusion criteria, and any limitations of the search are described.

Literature Analysis

The literature analysis is the main body of the literature review. This section summarizes and synthesizes the literature that is relevant to the research question or hypothesis. The review should be organized thematically, chronologically, or by methodology, depending on the research objectives.

Critical Evaluation

Critical evaluation involves assessing the quality and validity of the literature. This includes evaluating the reliability and validity of the studies reviewed, the methodology used, and the strength of the evidence.

The conclusion of the literature review should summarize the main findings, identify any gaps in the literature, and suggest areas for future research. It should also reiterate the importance of the research question or hypothesis and the contribution of the literature review to the overall research project.

The references list includes all the sources cited in the literature review, and follows a specific referencing style (e.g., APA, MLA, Harvard).

How to write Literature Review

Here are some steps to follow when writing a literature review:

• Define your research question or topic : Before starting your literature review, it is essential to define your research question or topic. This will help you identify relevant literature and determine the scope of your review.
• Conduct a comprehensive search: Use databases and search engines to find relevant literature. Look for peer-reviewed articles, books, and other academic sources that are relevant to your research question or topic.
• Evaluate the sources: Once you have found potential sources, evaluate them critically to determine their relevance, credibility, and quality. Look for recent publications, reputable authors, and reliable sources of data and evidence.
• Organize your sources: Group the sources by theme, method, or research question. This will help you identify similarities and differences among the literature, and provide a structure for your literature review.
• Analyze and synthesize the literature : Analyze each source in depth, identifying the key findings, methodologies, and conclusions. Then, synthesize the information from the sources, identifying patterns and themes in the literature.
• Write the literature review : Start with an introduction that provides an overview of the topic and the purpose of the literature review. Then, organize the literature according to your chosen structure, and analyze and synthesize the sources. Finally, provide a conclusion that summarizes the key findings of the literature review, identifies gaps in knowledge, and suggests areas for future research.
• Edit and proofread: Once you have written your literature review, edit and proofread it carefully to ensure that it is well-organized, clear, and concise.

Examples of Literature Review

Here’s an example of how a literature review can be conducted for a thesis on the topic of “ The Impact of Social Media on Teenagers’ Mental Health”:

• Start by identifying the key terms related to your research topic. In this case, the key terms are “social media,” “teenagers,” and “mental health.”
• Use academic databases like Google Scholar, JSTOR, or PubMed to search for relevant articles, books, and other publications. Use these keywords in your search to narrow down your results.
• Evaluate the sources you find to determine if they are relevant to your research question. You may want to consider the publication date, author’s credentials, and the journal or book publisher.
• Begin reading and taking notes on each source, paying attention to key findings, methodologies used, and any gaps in the research.
• Organize your findings into themes or categories. For example, you might categorize your sources into those that examine the impact of social media on self-esteem, those that explore the effects of cyberbullying, and those that investigate the relationship between social media use and depression.
• Synthesize your findings by summarizing the key themes and highlighting any gaps or inconsistencies in the research. Identify areas where further research is needed.
• Use your literature review to inform your research questions and hypotheses for your thesis.

For example, after conducting a literature review on the impact of social media on teenagers’ mental health, a thesis might look like this:

“Using a mixed-methods approach, this study aims to investigate the relationship between social media use and mental health outcomes in teenagers. Specifically, the study will examine the effects of cyberbullying, social comparison, and excessive social media use on self-esteem, anxiety, and depression. Through an analysis of survey data and qualitative interviews with teenagers, the study will provide insight into the complex relationship between social media use and mental health outcomes, and identify strategies for promoting positive mental health outcomes in young people.”

Reference: Smith, J., Jones, M., & Lee, S. (2019). The effects of social media use on adolescent mental health: A systematic review. Journal of Adolescent Health, 65(2), 154-165. doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2019.03.024

Reference Example: Author, A. A., Author, B. B., & Author, C. C. (Year). Title of article. Title of Journal, volume number(issue number), page range. doi:0000000/000000000000 or URL

Applications of Literature Review

some applications of literature review in different fields:

• Social Sciences: In social sciences, literature reviews are used to identify gaps in existing research, to develop research questions, and to provide a theoretical framework for research. Literature reviews are commonly used in fields such as sociology, psychology, anthropology, and political science.
• Natural Sciences: In natural sciences, literature reviews are used to summarize and evaluate the current state of knowledge in a particular field or subfield. Literature reviews can help researchers identify areas where more research is needed and provide insights into the latest developments in a particular field. Fields such as biology, chemistry, and physics commonly use literature reviews.
• Health Sciences: In health sciences, literature reviews are used to evaluate the effectiveness of treatments, identify best practices, and determine areas where more research is needed. Literature reviews are commonly used in fields such as medicine, nursing, and public health.
• Humanities: In humanities, literature reviews are used to identify gaps in existing knowledge, develop new interpretations of texts or cultural artifacts, and provide a theoretical framework for research. Literature reviews are commonly used in fields such as history, literary studies, and philosophy.

Role of Literature Review in Research

Here are some applications of literature review in research:

• Identifying Research Gaps : Literature review helps researchers identify gaps in existing research and literature related to their research question. This allows them to develop new research questions and hypotheses to fill those gaps.
• Developing Theoretical Framework: Literature review helps researchers develop a theoretical framework for their research. By analyzing and synthesizing existing literature, researchers can identify the key concepts, theories, and models that are relevant to their research.
• Selecting Research Methods : Literature review helps researchers select appropriate research methods and techniques based on previous research. It also helps researchers to identify potential biases or limitations of certain methods and techniques.
• Data Collection and Analysis: Literature review helps researchers in data collection and analysis by providing a foundation for the development of data collection instruments and methods. It also helps researchers to identify relevant data sources and identify potential data analysis techniques.
• Communicating Results: Literature review helps researchers to communicate their results effectively by providing a context for their research. It also helps to justify the significance of their findings in relation to existing research and literature.

Purpose of Literature Review

Some of the specific purposes of a literature review are as follows:

• To provide context: A literature review helps to provide context for your research by situating it within the broader body of literature on the topic.
• To identify gaps and inconsistencies: A literature review helps to identify areas where further research is needed or where there are inconsistencies in the existing literature.
• To synthesize information: A literature review helps to synthesize the information from multiple sources and present a coherent and comprehensive picture of the current state of knowledge on the topic.
• To identify key concepts and theories : A literature review helps to identify key concepts and theories that are relevant to your research question and provide a theoretical framework for your study.
• To inform research design: A literature review can inform the design of your research study by identifying appropriate research methods, data sources, and research questions.

Characteristics of Literature Review

Some Characteristics of Literature Review are as follows:

• Identifying gaps in knowledge: A literature review helps to identify gaps in the existing knowledge and research on a specific topic or research question. By analyzing and synthesizing the literature, you can identify areas where further research is needed and where new insights can be gained.
• Establishing the significance of your research: A literature review helps to establish the significance of your own research by placing it in the context of existing research. By demonstrating the relevance of your research to the existing literature, you can establish its importance and value.
• Informing research design and methodology : A literature review helps to inform research design and methodology by identifying the most appropriate research methods, techniques, and instruments. By reviewing the literature, you can identify the strengths and limitations of different research methods and techniques, and select the most appropriate ones for your own research.
• Supporting arguments and claims: A literature review provides evidence to support arguments and claims made in academic writing. By citing and analyzing the literature, you can provide a solid foundation for your own arguments and claims.
• I dentifying potential collaborators and mentors: A literature review can help identify potential collaborators and mentors by identifying researchers and practitioners who are working on related topics or using similar methods. By building relationships with these individuals, you can gain valuable insights and support for your own research and practice.
• Keeping up-to-date with the latest research : A literature review helps to keep you up-to-date with the latest research on a specific topic or research question. By regularly reviewing the literature, you can stay informed about the latest findings and developments in your field.

Advantages of Literature Review

There are several advantages to conducting a literature review as part of a research project, including:

• Establishing the significance of the research : A literature review helps to establish the significance of the research by demonstrating the gap or problem in the existing literature that the study aims to address.
• Identifying key concepts and theories: A literature review can help to identify key concepts and theories that are relevant to the research question, and provide a theoretical framework for the study.
• Supporting the research methodology : A literature review can inform the research methodology by identifying appropriate research methods, data sources, and research questions.
• Providing a comprehensive overview of the literature : A literature review provides a comprehensive overview of the current state of knowledge on a topic, allowing the researcher to identify key themes, debates, and areas of agreement or disagreement.
• Identifying potential research questions: A literature review can help to identify potential research questions and areas for further investigation.
• Avoiding duplication of research: A literature review can help to avoid duplication of research by identifying what has already been done on a topic, and what remains to be done.
• Enhancing the credibility of the research : A literature review helps to enhance the credibility of the research by demonstrating the researcher’s knowledge of the existing literature and their ability to situate their research within a broader context.

Limitations of Literature Review

Limitations of Literature Review are as follows:

• Limited scope : Literature reviews can only cover the existing literature on a particular topic, which may be limited in scope or depth.
• Publication bias : Literature reviews may be influenced by publication bias, which occurs when researchers are more likely to publish positive results than negative ones. This can lead to an incomplete or biased picture of the literature.
• Quality of sources : The quality of the literature reviewed can vary widely, and not all sources may be reliable or valid.
• Time-limited: Literature reviews can become quickly outdated as new research is published, making it difficult to keep up with the latest developments in a field.
• Subjective interpretation : Literature reviews can be subjective, and the interpretation of the findings can vary depending on the researcher’s perspective or bias.
• Lack of original data : Literature reviews do not generate new data, but rather rely on the analysis of existing studies.
• Risk of plagiarism: It is important to ensure that literature reviews do not inadvertently contain plagiarism, which can occur when researchers use the work of others without proper attribution.

About the author

Muhammad Hassan

Researcher, Academic Writer, Web developer

You may also like

Limitations in Research – Types, Examples and...

Research Topics – Ideas and Examples

Research Report – Example, Writing Guide and...

Dissertation – Format, Example and Template

Assignment – Types, Examples and Writing Guide

Context of the Study – Writing Guide and Examples

Reviewing the Literature, Developing a Hypothesis, Study Design

• First Online: 30 November 2016

Cite this chapter

• Rosalie Carr M.D. 5 &
• C. Max Schmidt M.D., Ph.D., M.B.A., F.A.C.S. 5  

Part of the book series: Success in Academic Surgery ((SIAS))

944 Accesses

Rigorous research investigation requires a thorough review of the literature on the topic of interest. This promotes development of an original, relevant and feasible hypothesis. Design of an optimal study to test the hypothesis then requires adequate power, freedom from bias, and conduct within a reasonable timeframe with resources available to the investigator.

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

Access this chapter

• 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

Similar content being viewed by others

Meta-Analysis

The Specific Aims

Meta-analysis and the science of research synthesis

Suggested additional reading.

Friedman LM, et al. Fundamentals of clinical trials. 4th ed. 2010.

Google Scholar  

Hulley SB. Designing clinical research. 4th ed. 2013.

Penson, Wei. Clinical research methods for surgeons. 2006.

Piantadosi S. Clinical trials: a methodological perspective. 2nd ed. 2005.

Download references

Acknowledgements

Carl Schmidt, MD, MSCI

Assistant Professor Surgery

The Ohio State University

Financial Support

Indiana Genomics Initiative (INGEN) of Indiana University. INGEN is supported in part by Lilly Endowment Inc. (CMS)

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Surgery, Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Indiana University School of Medicine, 980 W Walnut St C522, Indianapolis, IN, 46202, USA

Rosalie Carr M.D. & C. Max Schmidt M.D., Ph.D., M.B.A., F.A.C.S.

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Department of Surgery, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama, USA

Herbert Chen

Department of Surgery, The University of Texas Health Science Centre, Houston, Texas, USA

Lillian S. Kao

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Carr, R., Schmidt, C.M. (2017). Reviewing the Literature, Developing a Hypothesis, Study Design. In: Chen, H., Kao, L. (eds) Success in Academic Surgery. Success in Academic Surgery. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-43952-5_3

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-43952-5_3

Published : 30 November 2016

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-319-43951-8

Online ISBN : 978-3-319-43952-5

eBook Packages : Medicine Medicine (R0)

Share this chapter

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

Methodology of Social Science & International Relations

6 hypothesis , research question & literature review.

Hypothesis is a potential explanation to a phenomenon, and in a much more rigorous way. It’s the core of research design, after Research Question and Literature Review. 1,Hypothesis should be used in formal logic, if XXX ,then XXX. 2,Hypothesis should have clear boundaries and testable. 3,Hypothesis should never be regarded as certain events, and it’s must be theoretical.

6.1 With Research Question

Hypothesis is the potential explanation or mechanism to the Research Question.If we try to research what result in Nagorno-Karabakh War. We need follow the steps, Research Question, Literature Review, Theoretical Framework, Hypothesis. Theoretical framework in literature is the most important resource to figure out the hypothesis.The meaning and contribution should start from existed research.

Figure 6.1: literature review & hypothesis

6.2 With Literature Review

After diving in the facts and literatures, we possiblely can have some hypotheses. Last time I introduced 3 steps of searching literatures, now we connect those with hypothesis building.

If you want to research Nagorno-Karabakh War, there are many structures we can use, like ethnic conflicts, new independent countries’ nation-buildings, or territorial conflicts. We can choose ethnic conflicts.

Inside international ethinic conflicts, then there are lots of possible hypotheses.Like ethinic diversity, regime, nationalism, economic imbalance, resource trap, cross-broder ethenic group, colonazation.The Main difference is the benchmark, that’s why firstly we need should choose problem domain. The problem domain determains our hypothesis boundary, and potential choices.

Figure 6.2: literature review & hypothesis

6.3 Rethinking Hypothesis

Should we take as much explanation as possible ? Should we call one approach is the most convincing ?

6.4 Hypothesis & Proving

Figure 6.3: circular argument

6.5 From Science

Try to introduce some explanations to obsity. 1, In evolutionary biology, in case of hunger or unstable envrionment, evolutionary selection make us to prefer high-calorie food, and feel more attractive. 2, Genomics， Ceratin genes can make our body much easier to store calorie. 3, Microbiology， Intestinal Flora affect our digestion procedures 4, Biochemistry, How stomach send the signals to our brain. 5, Neuroscience, How our brain handle incentive of food.refined/calorie 6, Medicine, Some disease can cuase obesity, like metabolism. others, like diet, sleeping, pressure

6.6 From Social Science

1, Economics, food industry’s profit-orentiation and marketing enhance our preference. 2, Political Science, Interest Group, Lobbying affect the policy 3, Psychology, Pressure and our neuro-mental mechanism 4, Sociology, social class, inequality, popoular culture, habit 5, IR, Globalisation, the expansion of global suger. 6, Reflection, How BMI, obesity is defined and interpretation.

Communicative Sciences and Disorders

• Online Learners: Quick Links
• ASHA Journals
• Research Tip 1: Define the Research Question
• Reference Resources
• Evidence Summaries & Clinical Guidelines
• Drug Information
• Health Data & Statistics
• Patient/Consumer Facing Materials
• Images/Streaming Video
• Database Tutorials
• Crafting a Search
• Cited Reference Searching
• Research Tip 4: Find Grey Literature
• Research Tip 5: Save Your Work
• Cite and Manage Your Sources
• Critical Appraisal
• What are Literature Reviews?
• Conducting & Reporting Systematic Reviews
• Finding Systematic Reviews
• Tutorials & Tools for Literature Reviews
• Point of Care Tools (Mobile Apps)

Choosing a Review Type

For guidance related to choosing a review type, see:

• "What Type of Review is Right for You?" - Decision Tree (PDF) This decision tree, from Cornell University Library, highlights key difference between narrative, systematic, umbrella, scoping and rapid reviews.
• Reviewing the literature: choosing a review design Noble, H., & Smith, J. (2018). Reviewing the literature: Choosing a review design. Evidence Based Nursing, 21(2), 39–41. https://doi.org/10.1136/eb-2018-102895
• What synthesis methodology should I use? A review and analysis of approaches to research synthesis Schick-Makaroff, K., MacDonald, M., Plummer, M., Burgess, J., & Neander, W. (2016). What synthesis methodology should I use? A review and analysis of approaches to research synthesis. AIMS Public Health, 3 (1), 172-215. doi:10.3934/publichealth.2016.1.172 More information less... ABSTRACT: Our purpose is to present a comprehensive overview and assessment of the main approaches to research synthesis. We use "research synthesis" as a broad overarching term to describe various approaches to combining, integrating, and synthesizing research findings.
• Right Review - Decision Support Tool Not sure of the most suitable review method? Answer a few questions and be guided to suitable knowledge synthesis methods. Updated in 2022 and featured in the Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2022.03.004

Types of Evidence Synthesis / Literature Reviews

Literature reviews are comprehensive summaries and syntheses of the previous research on a given topic.  While narrative reviews are common across all academic disciplines, reviews that focus on appraising and synthesizing research evidence are increasingly important in the health and social sciences.  

Most evidence synthesis methods use formal and explicit methods to identify, select and combine results from multiple studies, making evidence synthesis a form of meta-research.  

The review purpose, methods used and the results produced vary among different kinds of literature reviews; some of the common types of literature review are detailed below.

Common Types of Literature Reviews 1

Narrative (literature) review.

• A broad term referring to reviews with a wide scope and non-standardized methodology
• Search strategies, comprehensiveness of literature search, time range covered and method of synthesis will vary and do not follow an established protocol

Integrative Review

• A type of literature review based on a systematic, structured literature search
• Often has a broadly defined purpose or review question
• Seeks to generate or refine and theory or hypothesis and/or develop a holistic understanding of a topic of interest
• Relies on diverse sources of data (e.g. empirical, theoretical or methodological literature; qualitative or quantitative studies)

Systematic Review

• Systematically and transparently collects and categorize existing evidence on a question of scientific, policy or management importance
• Follows a research protocol that is established a priori
• Some sub-types of systematic reviews include: SRs of intervention effectiveness, diagnosis, prognosis, etiology, qualitative evidence, economic evidence, and more.
• Time-intensive and often takes months to a year or more to complete 
• The most commonly referred to type of evidence synthesis; sometimes confused as a blanket term for other types of reviews

Meta-Analysis

• Statistical technique for combining the findings from disparate quantitative studies
• Uses statistical methods to objectively evaluate, synthesize, and summarize results
• Often conducted as part of a systematic review

Scoping Review

• Systematically and transparently collects and categorizes existing evidence on a broad question of scientific, policy or management importance
• Seeks to identify research gaps, identify key concepts and characteristics of the literature and/or examine how research is conducted on a topic of interest
• Useful when the complexity or heterogeneity of the body of literature does not lend itself to a precise systematic review
• Useful if authors do not have a single, precise review question
• May critically evaluate existing evidence, but does not attempt to synthesize the results in the way a systematic review would 
• May take longer than a systematic review

Rapid Review

• Applies a systematic review methodology within a time-constrained setting
• Employs methodological "shortcuts" (e.g., limiting search terms and the scope of the literature search), at the risk of introducing bias
• Useful for addressing issues requiring quick decisions, such as developing policy recommendations

Umbrella Review

• Reviews other systematic reviews on a topic
• Often defines a broader question than is typical of a traditional systematic review
• Most useful when there are competing interventions to consider

1. Adapted from:

Eldermire, E. (2021, November 15). A guide to evidence synthesis: Types of evidence synthesis. Cornell University LibGuides. https://guides.library.cornell.edu/evidence-synthesis/types

Nolfi, D. (2021, October 6). Integrative Review: Systematic vs. Scoping vs. Integrative. Duquesne University LibGuides. https://guides.library.duq.edu/c.php?g=1055475&p=7725920

Delaney, L. (2021, November 24). Systematic reviews: Other review types. UniSA LibGuides. https://guides.library.unisa.edu.au/SystematicReviews/OtherReviewTypes

Further Reading: Exploring Different Types of Literature Reviews

• A typology of reviews: An analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies Grant, M. J., & Booth, A. (2009). A typology of reviews: An analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Information and Libraries Journal, 26 (2), 91-108. doi:10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x More information less... ABSTRACT: The expansion of evidence-based practice across sectors has lead to an increasing variety of review types. However, the diversity of terminology used means that the full potential of these review types may be lost amongst a confusion of indistinct and misapplied terms. The objective of this study is to provide descriptive insight into the most common types of reviews, with illustrative examples from health and health information domains.
• Clarifying differences between review designs and methods Gough, D., Thomas, J., & Oliver, S. (2012). Clarifying differences between review designs and methods. Systematic Reviews, 1 , 28. doi:10.1186/2046-4053-1-28 More information less... ABSTRACT: This paper argues that the current proliferation of types of systematic reviews creates challenges for the terminology for describing such reviews....It is therefore proposed that the most useful strategy for the field is to develop terminology for the main dimensions of variation.
• Are we talking the same paradigm? Considering methodological choices in health education systematic review Gordon, M. (2016). Are we talking the same paradigm? Considering methodological choices in health education systematic review. Medical Teacher, 38 (7), 746-750. doi:10.3109/0142159X.2016.1147536 More information less... ABSTRACT: Key items discussed are the positivist synthesis methods meta-analysis and content analysis to address questions in the form of "whether and what" education is effective. These can be juxtaposed with the constructivist aligned thematic analysis and meta-ethnography to address questions in the form of "why." The concept of the realist review is also considered. It is proposed that authors of such work should describe their research alignment and the link between question, alignment and evidence synthesis method selected.
• Meeting the review family: Exploring review types and associated information retrieval requirements Sutton, A., Clowes, M., Preston, L., & Booth, A. (2019). Meeting the review family: Exploring review types and associated information retrieval requirements. Health Information & Libraries Journal, 36(3), 202–222. doi: 10.1111/hir.12276

Integrative Reviews

"The integrative review method is an approach that allows for the inclusion of diverse methodologies (i.e. experimental and non-experimental research)." (Whittemore & Knafl, 2005, p. 547).

• The integrative review: Updated methodology Whittemore, R., & Knafl, K. (2005). The integrative review: Updated methodology. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 52 (5), 546–553. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2648.2005.03621.x More information less... ABSTRACT: The aim of this paper is to distinguish the integrative review method from other review methods and to propose methodological strategies specific to the integrative review method to enhance the rigour of the process....An integrative review is a specific review method that summarizes past empirical or theoretical literature to provide a more comprehensive understanding of a particular phenomenon or healthcare problem....Well-done integrative reviews present the state of the science, contribute to theory development, and have direct applicability to practice and policy.

• Conducting integrative reviews: A guide for novice nursing researchers Dhollande, S., Taylor, A., Meyer, S., & Scott, M. (2021). Conducting integrative reviews: A guide for novice nursing researchers. Journal of Research in Nursing, 26(5), 427–438. https://doi.org/10.1177/1744987121997907
• Rigour in integrative reviews Whittemore, R. (2007). Rigour in integrative reviews. In C. Webb & B. Roe (Eds.), Reviewing Research Evidence for Nursing Practice (pp. 149–156). John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470692127.ch11

Scoping Reviews

Scoping reviews are evidence syntheses that are conducted systematically, but begin with a broader scope of question than traditional systematic reviews, allowing the research to 'map' the relevant literature on a given topic.

• Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework Arksey, H., & O'Malley, L. (2005). Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8 (1), 19-32. doi:10.1080/1364557032000119616 More information less... ABSTRACT: We distinguish between different types of scoping studies and indicate where these stand in relation to full systematic reviews. We outline a framework for conducting a scoping study based on our recent experiences of reviewing the literature on services for carers for people with mental health problems.
• Scoping studies: Advancing the methodology Levac, D., Colquhoun, H., & O'Brien, K. K. (2010). Scoping studies: Advancing the methodology. Implementation Science, 5 (1), 69. doi:10.1186/1748-5908-5-69 More information less... ABSTRACT: We build upon our experiences conducting three scoping studies using the Arksey and O'Malley methodology to propose recommendations that clarify and enhance each stage of the framework.
• Methodology for JBI scoping reviews Peters, M. D. J., Godfrey, C. M., McInerney, P., Baldini Soares, C., Khalil, H., & Parker, D. (2015). The Joanna Briggs Institute reviewers’ manual: Methodology for JBI scoping reviews [PDF]. Retrieved from The Joanna Briggs Institute website: http://joannabriggs.org/assets/docs/sumari/Reviewers-Manual_Methodology-for-JBI-Scoping-Reviews_2015_v2.pdf More information less... ABSTRACT: Unlike other reviews that address relatively precise questions, such as a systematic review of the effectiveness of a particular intervention based on a precise set of outcomes, scoping reviews can be used to map the key concepts underpinning a research area as well as to clarify working definitions, and/or the conceptual boundaries of a topic. A scoping review may focus on one of these aims or all of them as a set.

Systematic vs. Scoping Reviews: What's the Difference? 

YouTube Video 4 minutes, 45 seconds

Rapid Reviews

Rapid reviews are systematic reviews that are undertaken under a tighter timeframe than traditional systematic reviews. 

• Evidence summaries: The evolution of a rapid review approach Khangura, S., Konnyu, K., Cushman, R., Grimshaw, J., & Moher, D. (2012). Evidence summaries: The evolution of a rapid review approach. Systematic Reviews, 1 (1), 10. doi:10.1186/2046-4053-1-10 More information less... ABSTRACT: Rapid reviews have emerged as a streamlined approach to synthesizing evidence - typically for informing emergent decisions faced by decision makers in health care settings. Although there is growing use of rapid review "methods," and proliferation of rapid review products, there is a dearth of published literature on rapid review methodology. This paper outlines our experience with rapidly producing, publishing and disseminating evidence summaries in the context of our Knowledge to Action (KTA) research program.
• What is a rapid review? A methodological exploration of rapid reviews in Health Technology Assessments Harker, J., & Kleijnen, J. (2012). What is a rapid review? A methodological exploration of rapid reviews in Health Technology Assessments. International Journal of Evidence‐Based Healthcare, 10 (4), 397-410. doi:10.1111/j.1744-1609.2012.00290.x More information less... ABSTRACT: In recent years, there has been an emergence of "rapid reviews" within Health Technology Assessments; however, there is no known published guidance or agreed methodology within recognised systematic review or Health Technology Assessment guidelines. In order to answer the research question "What is a rapid review and is methodology consistent in rapid reviews of Health Technology Assessments?", a study was undertaken in a sample of rapid review Health Technology Assessments from the Health Technology Assessment database within the Cochrane Library and other specialised Health Technology Assessment databases to investigate similarities and/or differences in rapid review methodology utilised.
• Rapid Review Guidebook Dobbins, M. (2017). Rapid review guidebook. Hamilton, ON: National Collaborating Centre for Methods and Tools.
• NCCMT Summary and Tool for Dobbins' Rapid Review Guidebook National Collaborating Centre for Methods and Tools. (2017). Rapid review guidebook. Hamilton, ON: McMaster University. Retrieved from http://www.nccmt.ca/knowledge-repositories/search/308
• << Previous: Literature Reviews
• Next: Conducting & Reporting Systematic Reviews >>
• Last Updated: Jun 26, 2024 3:00 PM
• URL: https://guides.nyu.edu/speech

• DOI: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2024.105781
• Corpus ID: 270702828

Sense of agency in schizophrenia: a reconciliation of conflicting findings through a theory-driven literature review

• Ileana Rossetti , Marika Mariano , +2 authors L. Zapparoli
• Published in Neuroscience and… 1 June 2024

Figures from this paper

93 References

Sensory attenuation deficit and auditory hallucinations in schizophrenia: a causal mechanism or a risk factor evidence from meta-analyses on the n1 event-related potential component.

• Highly Influential

Embodied Predictions, Agency, and Psychosis

The experience of agency: an interplay between prediction and postdiction, altered sense of agency in schizophrenia and the putative psychotic prodrome.

• 18 Excerpts

Altered awareness of action in schizophrenia: a specific deficit in predicting action consequences.

Defective recognition of one's own actions in patients with schizophrenia..

• 10 Excerpts

The perception of self-produced sensory stimuli in patients with auditory hallucinations and passivity experiences: evidence for a breakdown in self-monitoring

Looking for the agent: an investigation into consciousness of action and self-consciousness in schizophrenic patients, impaired perception of temporal contiguity between action and effect is associated with disorders of agency in schizophrenia, the neurophenomenology of early psychosis: an integrative empirical study, related papers.

Showing 1 through 3 of 0 Related Papers

An official website of the United States government

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

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

• Publications
• Account settings

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

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

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

Julie a. luft.

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

Sophia Jeong

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

Robert Idsardi

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

Grant Gardner

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

Associated Data

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

INTRODUCTION

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comparison of literature reviews, theoretical frameworks, and conceptual reviews

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

LITERATURE REVIEWS

Purpose of a literature review.

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

Building Literature Reviews

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Suggestions and Advice

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

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

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

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

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORKS

Purpose of theoretical frameworks.

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

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

Selecting Theoretical Frameworks

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORKS

Purpose of a conceptual framework.

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

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

Constructing Conceptual Frameworks

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

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

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

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

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

Conceptual framework from Sabel et al. (2017) .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CONCLUDING THOUGHTS

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

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

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

Supplementary Material

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

University of Notre Dame

Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews

• Home ›
• Reviews ›

Religion as Make-Believe: A Theory of Belief, Imagination, and Group Identity

Neil Van Leeuwen, Religion as Make-Believe , Harvard University Press, 2023, 312pp., $45.00 (hbk), ISBN 9780674290334.

Reviewed by Eric Schwitzgebel, University of California, Riverside

In  Religion as Make-Believe, Neil Van Leeuwen argues that factual beliefs (for example, that there’s beer in the fridge) differ greatly from “religious credences” (for example, that God is a trinity). Although people commonly say they “believe” the central doctrines of their religion, their attitudes are often closer to pretense. Hence, religion as “make-believe”.

According to Van Leeuwen, if you factually believe that there is beer in the fridge, your attitude normally has four functional features:

(1)  It is involuntary . You can’t help but believe that there’s beer in the fridge upon looking there and seeing beer.

(2)  It is vulnerable to evidence. If you later look in the fridge and discover no beer, your belief will vanish.

(3)  It guides actions across the board. If the question of whether beer is in the fridge becomes relevant, you will tend to act in light of that belief.

(4)  It provides the informational background governing other attitudes. For example, if you imagine a beer-loving guest opening the fridge, you will imagine them noticing the beer.

Religious credences, as Van Leeuwen characterizes them, have none of these features. If you “religiously creed” that God is a trinity, that attitude is:

(1)  Voluntary . In some sense, you choose to have this religious credence.

(2)  Invulnerable to evidence . Factual evidence, for example, scientific evidence concerning the origin of the universe, will not normally cause the credence to disappear.

(3)  Guides actions only in limited contexts. Outside of specifically religious contexts, the credence has little influence on behavior.

(4)  Doesn’t reliably govern other attitudes. You will not, for example, alter your understanding of logic in light of the trinity paradox.

Although some people may factually believe some religious doctrines, Van Leeuwen holds that commonly what religious people say they believe they instead religiously creed.

Van Leeuwen describes his view as a “two map” view. Many religious people have one picture of the world – one map – concerning what they factually believe, and a different picture of the world – a different map – concerning what they religiously creed. These maps can conflict. Someone might factually believe that Earth is billions of years old and religiously creed that it is under a million years old. Such conflict needn’t be irrational, since the attitudes differ. Compare: You might believe that Earth is billions of years old but imagine, desire, or assume for the sake of argument that it is under a million years old. We draw different pictures for different purposes. On Van Leeuwen’s view, the same holds for religious credence.

Why do we have religious credences, if they are so tenuously connected to evidence? Van Leeuwen suggests that religious credences function to support group identities: They guide symbolic actions (for example, ritual behaviors) that signal group allegiance; and by professing “belief” in religious doctrines, people indicate and partly constitute their membership in a social group. Notably, the second function is best served if the religious credence is not well supported by factual evidence. If factual evidence compelled everyone to believe that God is a trinity, endorsement of that proposition would not distinguish group members from others. “Sacred” acts and values work similarly: Treating something as inviolable often works as a criterion of inclusion in a group identity. However, religious people typically factually recognize that sacred objects are ordinary mundane objects (an edible wafer, a simple doll) and can readily shift to conceptualizing them as unimportant outside of the context of the symbolic action.

Van Leeuwen also presents empirical evidence for a distinction between “think” and “believe” in ordinary usage, arguing that people more commonly use “think” for factual beliefs and “believe” for religious credences. It’s more natural to say I think there’s beer in the fridge and I believe that God is a trinity than the reverse. Such usage differences appear not only in Indo-European languages (for example, glauben in German and creer in Spanish being aligned with religious credence) but also in unrelated languages such as Thai and Mandarin (p. 136-139).

Plausibly, some people have religious attitudes that match the functional profile of Van Leeuwen’s religious credence. They voluntarily choose those attitudes. Counterevidence doesn’t budge them – not because they deny the counterevidence, but because they don’t regard their religious doctrines as factual, much as a child knows that their pretend telephone is not in fact a telephone but instead really a banana. And their attitudes are segregated from practical action and reasoning outside of religious contexts. At a Passover Seder, perhaps, they affirm their Jewish identity by choosing to say “God spared our firstborn sons” – but outside of temple they readily accept, perhaps even insist, that such stories are historically false. Van Leeuwen clearly articulates how such religious cognition differs from ordinary factual belief, neatly explaining several features of it, such as why factually unsupported propositions often play a central role. Belief theorists across a wide range of theoretical viewpoints can generally agree with Van Leeuwen that in such cases the affirmed religious proposition is not really “believed” (in the sense of “belief” standard in recent Anglophone philosophy).

However, also plausibly, as Van Leeuwen explicitly acknowledges, some people factually believe, and don’t just religiously creed, some of the doctrines of their religion. These “true believers”, as we might call them, are guided by religious doctrine whenever the content is relevant. They include those doctrines in the cognitive background governing their other attitudes. And they feel rationally compelled to reject any apparent counterevidence – for example, some young-Earth creationists who reject mainstream science. Their one map of the structure of the world builds God’s creation right into it, and anything that conflicts must be rejected. True believers’ religious doctrines are not a second, optional map, deployed when convenient in religious contexts and otherwise set aside.

The question then becomes: How typical is the first form of religious cognition? Van Leeuwen presents no systematic evidence concerning the proportion of religious make-believers to religious true believers. Still, Van Leeuwen invites the reader to regard make-believe as typical. For example, there’s the title: Religion as Make-Believe . This suggests a general account of religion as it typically occurs. He portrays evangelical Christians in the United States as typically having make-believe religious credence, not factual belief, in doctrines such as the effectiveness of petitionary prayer. We might accept religious make-believe in Van Leeuwen’s sense as a genuine phenomenon, which he has helpfully noticed and skillfully theorized, while wondering how common it is.

I conclude with three concerns.

(1) The distinction is too sharp.  While Van Leeuwen allows the possibility of intermediate attitudes with some characteristics of factual belief and some characteristics of religious credence, he appears to regard intermediate cases as atypical. However, on an alternative and potentially empirically attractive view, big-picture attitudes typically have functional profiles somewhere between those that Van Leeuwen associates with factual belief and those he associates with religious credence.

Consider contents like: My teenage daughter has a great eye for fashion , or dispositionalism is the best approach to the metaphysics of belief , or all the races are intellectually equal . On a wide range of secular topics we care about, we ignore some counterevidence, tolerate some inconsistency, half-choose to allow ourselves to be or not to be convinced, and sometimes permit ourselves to deploy different ideas in different contexts. If religious attitudes also often inhabit this in-between space, being somewhat but not entirely voluntary, evidence-resistant, and divorced from mundane thought and action, then we have a smear of intermediate cases rather than two sharply distinguished attitude types.

(2) Van Leeuwen insufficiently attends to weak belief. A member of the Vineyard Christian movement claimed in religious contexts that a shock they experienced from their coffeemaker was a demonic attack, but also repaired their coffeemaker and described the shock in a more mundane way in non-religious contexts (p. 78-80). People who engage in petitionary prayer for healing typically also see doctors (p. 86-88). And people often confess doubt about their religion (p. 93-95, 124-125). Van Leeuwen leans heavily on such facts in making the case that people often don’t factually believe what they religiously endorse. Such observations are excellent evidence that the people don’t believe with 100% confidence that the demon shocked them, that the prayer will heal them, and that the central tenets of their religion are all true.

But such observations are virtually no evidence against the possibility of ordinary factual belief of perhaps 75% confidence that a demon shocked them, that prayer will heal, and that the central tenets are true. Alternative explanations, backup plans, and expressions of anxious doubt can be entirely appropriate and rational manifestations of low-confidence factual belief. On page 226, Van Leeuwen acknowledges and partly rebuts this “weak belief” explanation of religious attitudes, but the possibility doesn’t receive the attention it deserves earlier in the book. Much (though I agree, not all) of the waffling, double-mindedness, and situational variability in many people’s religious attitudes could be an ordinary reaction to uncertainty rather than signaling an attitude type other than factual belief. This undercuts an important element of his case for the distinction.

(3) If credence and belief are different attitude types, why do we feel rational pressure to reconcile their contents? [1]   There is no rational conflict whatsoever between believing that Earth is billions of years old and imagining, desiring, or assuming for the sake of argument that Earth is under a million years old. We can construct conflicting maps for those different attitudes, feeling no rational pressure from their divergent contents. Believing P stands in no rational conflict with imagining not-P. But it doesn’t seem like most of us are, or should be, so easygoing about conflicts between religious attitudes and factual beliefs. Of course, some people are easygoing, such as the Passover Seder make-believer. However, I expect – and this is an empirical conjecture that could be tested with a careful application of Van Leeuwen’s framework – that most people, especially to the extent they say that they “believe” the doctrines of their religion, will reject conflicting factual content. They will say, for example, “Earth really is young. Mainstream science is wrong.” In other words, they feel the tension.

If so, most self-described believers don’t really have two attitudes types with conflicting content that needn’t be reconciled but instead one attitude type, representing Earth as either actually old or actually young. If they buy the science, they reinterpret the creation stories as myths or metaphors. If they insist that the creation stories are true, they reject the scientific consensus. What most people don’t appear to do is hold both the standard scientific view that Earth is literally old and simultaneously the religious view that Earth is literally young, with no felt tension. One or the other proposition will normally be treated as non-literal. Alternatively, someone might settle instead on a low-credence, intermediate, agnostic state. Note here the difference between modeling religious cognition through two factual beliefs with contents rendered non-conflicting (belief that P and belief that mythologically not-P) versus modeling it, as Van Leeuwen does, through different attitudes toward contradictory contents there is no rational pressure to reconcile (factual belief that P and religious credence that not-P). A one-attitude view nicely explains felt tension and the impulse to uncertainty or agnosticism. The tension is more difficult to explain on a two-attitude view.

Given its plausibility as an account of at least some religious cognition, Van Leeuwen’s Religion as Make-Believe constitutes a major achievement in the study of religious attitudes, which will and should shape discussion of religious belief for decades to come.

[1] I owe this objection in part to Thomas Kelly, who raised a version of it in a workshop discussion of Van Leeuwen’s work at Princeton in June 2022. See also my Splintered Mind blog post “The Overlapping Dispositional Profiles of Different Types of Belief” (Sep 12, 2022), Van Leeuwen’s guest post “The Rational Pressure Argument” (Oct 13, 2022), and my “Religious Believers Normally Do and Should Want Their Religious Credences to Align with Their Factual Beliefs” (Mar 14, 2024), all at https://schwitzsplinters.blogspot.com .

Research Terms

Ai generator.

Research terms are specific words or phrases used in academic writing to describe the research process, methodologies, and findings. These include concepts like hypothesis , variables, sample size, literature review, and data analysis. Understanding these terms is crucial for interpreting research studies and effectively communicating ideas. Mastery of research terms enhances clarity in academic discourse, whether in a research project proposal , a qualitative research report , or the description of research methodology.

What are terms in research?

Terms in research refer to the specific words, phrases, and concepts used within a study to define its scope, methodology , and focus. These terms ensure clarity and precision, allowing researchers to communicate ideas and findings effectively. Clear definitions facilitate a shared understanding and maintain the integrity and replicability of research.

Examples of Research Terms

• Hypothesis : A proposed explanation for a phenomenon, to be tested through research.
• Variable : Any factor or element that can be changed and measured in research.
• Literature Review : A comprehensive survey of existing research and publications on a specific topic.
• Methodology : The systematic plan and approach used to conduct research.
• Data Collection : The process of gathering information for analysis in research.
• Sample : A subset of a population selected for observation and analysis.
• Control Group : A group in an experiment that does not receive the treatment, used for comparison.
• Validity : The extent to which a research study measures what it intends to measure.
• Reliability : The consistency of a research study or measuring test.
• Abstract : A brief summary of a research study’s aims, methods, results, and conclusions.
• Population : The entire group of individuals or instances about whom the research is concerned.
• Ethics : Moral principles that govern a researcher’s conduct and the conduct of the research.
• Bias : A systematic error introduced into sampling or testing by selecting or encouraging one outcome over others.
• Pilot Study : A small-scale preliminary study conducted to evaluate feasibility, time, cost, risk, and adverse events.
• Peer Review : A process by which a research study is evaluated by experts in the same field before publication.
• Quantitative Research : Research that relies on numerical data and statistical methods.
• Qualitative Research : Research that relies on non-numerical data, such as interviews, observations, and textual analysis.
• Case Study : An in-depth study of a particular case, individual, group, or event.
• Longitudinal Study : Research that follows subjects over a long period to observe changes and developments.
• Cross-sectional Study : Research that analyzes data from a population at a specific point in time.
• Independent Variable : The variable that is manipulated to observe its effect on the dependent variable.
• Dependent Variable : The variable being tested and measured in an experiment.
• Confounding Variable : An outside influence that affects the dependent and independent variables, causing a spurious association.
• Operational Definition : A clear, precise, and measurable definition of a variable for the purposes of a study.
• Statistical Significance : The likelihood that a result or relationship is caused by something other than mere chance.
• Random Sample : A sample that fairly represents a population because each member has an equal chance of inclusion.
• Correlation : A measure of the relationship between two variables.
• Experimental Group : The group in an experiment that receives the treatment.
• Theoretical Framework : A structure that guides research by providing a clear perspective and basis for the study.
• Meta-analysis : A statistical technique that combines the results of multiple studies to determine overall trends.

Research Terms List

5 Common Research Terminologies

• Hypothesis : A testable prediction about the relationship between two or more variables.
• Variable : An element, feature, or factor that can be changed and measured in research.

Confusing Terms in Research

• Reliability : The consistency of a research study or measuring test over time.
• Independent Variable : The variable that is manipulated to observe its effect.
• Dependent Variable : The variable being tested and measured, which is affected by the independent variable.
• Random Assignment : Assigning participants to experimental and control groups by chance to minimize pre-existing differences.
• Descriptive Research : Research that aims to describe characteristics of a population or phenomenon.
• Explanatory Research : Research that seeks to explain the reasons behind a phenomenon or relationship.

Key Research Terms

1. abstract.

• A brief summary of the research paper, outlining the main points, purpose, methods, results, and conclusions.

2. Hypothesis

• A testable statement or prediction about the relationship between two or more variables.

3. Variable

• An element, feature, or factor that can be changed and measured in research. Includes independent, dependent, and control variables.

4. Literature Review

• A comprehensive survey of existing research and publications relevant to the research topic.

5. Methodology

• The systematic plan for conducting research, including the methods, techniques, and procedures used to collect and analyze data.

6. Qualitative Research

• Research that focuses on understanding phenomena through non-numerical data such as interviews, observations, and texts.

7. Quantitative Research

• Research that focuses on quantifying data and analyzing it statistically to draw conclusions.

8. Sampling

• The process of selecting a subset of individuals from a population to represent the whole group in research.

9. Data Collection

• The process of gathering information from various sources to answer research questions.

10. Data Analysis

• The process of examining, cleaning, transforming, and modeling data to discover useful information, draw conclusions, and support decision-making.

Terms Synonymous to Research

FAQ’s

What is a variable in research.

A variable is any characteristic, number, or quantity that can be measured or quantified in research.

What is the difference between qualitative and quantitative research?

Qualitative research explores concepts and experiences in-depth, while quantitative research involves measuring and analyzing numerical data.

What is a literature review?

A literature review summarizes existing research on a topic, identifying trends, gaps, and key findings.

What is a sample in research?

A sample is a subset of a population selected for study to represent the entire group.

What is a hypothesis?

A hypothesis is a testable prediction or educated guess about the relationship between two or more variables in a study.

What is data collection?

Data collection involves gathering information from various sources to address a research question or hypothesis.

What is an independent variable?

An independent variable is the variable that is manipulated or changed in an experiment to observe its effect.

What is a dependent variable?

A dependent variable is the variable being tested and measured in an experiment, affected by the independent variable.

What is a control group?

A control group is a group in an experiment that does not receive the treatment, used for comparison against the experimental group.

What is a research methodology?

Research methodology is the systematic plan for conducting research, including methods for data collection and analysis.

Text prompt

• Instructive
• Professional

10 Examples of Public speaking

20 Examples of Gas lighting

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
• Recommended Articles
• 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

Strategic synergies: unveiling the interplay of game theory and cultural dynamics in a globalized world.

1. Introduction

• How do cultural norms affect strategic decisions made in varied cultures, and how can game theory be used to estimate these decisions?
• How does game theory contribute to the understanding of cultural evolution, and what roles can it play in modeling forthcoming cultural transformations?
• How could the integration of game-theoretic models and cultural studies impact the development of policies in diverse culture settings?

2. Literature Review

3.1. cultural norms and social interactions, 3.2. cultural diversity and strategic behavior, 3.3. cultural change and game-theoretic anticipatory analysis, 3.4. culture and game design, 3.5. the role of game theory in preserving cultural heritage, 3.6. cross-cultural interactions with game theory, 3.7. application of game theory in cultural domains, 3.8. quantifiability of behavior and culture, 4. materials and methods, 5. conclusions, 6. acknowledgment of limitations, author contributions, data availability statement, conflicts of interest.

• Sandholm, W.H. Evolutionary Game Theory. Complex Soc. Behav. Syst. 2020 , 48 , 573–608. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Grigoryan, G.; Collins, A.J. Game theory for systems engineering: A survey. Int. J. Syst. Syst. Eng. 2021 , 11 , 121. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• He, J.; Li, Y.; Li, H.; Tong, H.; Yuan, Z.; Yang, X.; Huang, W. Application of Game Theory in Integrated Energy System Systems: A Review. IEEE Access 2020 , 8 , 93380–93397. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Battaglini, M.; Harstad, B. The Political Economy of Weak Treaties. J. Political Econ. 2020 , 128 , 544–590. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lansford, J.E. Annual Research Review: Cross-cultural similarities and differences in parenting. J. Child Psychol. Psychiatry 2021 , 63 , 466–479. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Cotter, K. Playing the Visibility game: How Digital Influencers and Algorithms Negotiate Influence on Instagram. New Media Soc. 2019 , 21 , 895–913. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lopez-Fernandez, O.; Williams, A.J.; Griffiths, M.D.; Kuss, D.J. Female Gaming, Gaming Addiction, and the Role of Women Within Gaming Culture: A Narrative Literature Review. Front. Psychiatry 2019 , 10 , 454. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Hajisoteriou, C.; Karousiou, C.; Angelides, P. Successful components of school improvement in culturally diverse schools. Sch. Eff. Sch. Improv. 2018 , 29 , 91–112. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• King, B.G.; Jasper, J.M. Strategic interactions and arenas: A sociological perspective on strategy. Strateg. Organ. 2022 , 20 , 810–820. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Babu, S.; Mohan, U. An integrated approach to evaluating sustainability in supply chains using evolutionary game theory. Comput. Oper. Res. 2018 , 89 , 269–283. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• van Dijk, E.; De Dreu, C.K.W. Experimental Games and Social Decision Making. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2021 , 72 , 415–438. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Bicchieri, C.; Muldoon, R.; Sontuoso, A. Social Norms. 2018. Available online: https://www.sas.upenn.edu/ppe-repec/ppc/wpaper/0015.pdf (accessed on 16 May 2024).
• Olivola, C.Y.; Kim, Y.; Merzel, A.; Kareev, Y.; Avrahami, J.; Ritov, I. Cooperation and coordination across cultures and contexts: Individual, sociocultural, and contextual factors jointly influence decision making in the volunteer’s dilemma game. J. Behav. Decis. Mak. 2019 , 33 , 93–118. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wildavsky, A. Indispensable Framework or Just Another Ideology? Prisoner’s Dilemma As an Antihierarchical Game 1 , 1st ed.; Routledge: London, UK, 2018; pp. 217–230. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ismail, M. The Story of Conflict and Cooperation. SSRN Electron. J. 2020 , 2–5. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Roos, D.; Hahn, R. Understanding Collaborative Consumption: An Extension of the Theory of Planned Behavior with Value-Based Personal Norms. J. Bus. Ethics 2019 , 158 , 679–697. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bezin, E.; Ponthiere, G. The tragedy of the commons and socialization: Theory and policy. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 2019 , 98 , 102260. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Curry, O.S.; Mullins, D.A.; Whitehouse, H. Is It Good to Cooperate? Testing the Theory of Morality-as-Cooperation in 60 Societies. Curr. Anthropol. 2019 , 60 , 47–69. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Legros, S.; Cislaghi, B. Mapping the Social-Norms Literature: An Overview of Reviews. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 2020 , 15 , 62–80. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Newton, J. Evolutionary Game Theory: A Renaissance. Games 2018 , 9 , 31. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Vuong, Q.-H. The semiconducting principle of monetary and environmental values exchange. Econ. Bus. Lett. 2021 , 10 , 284–290. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Rudvin, M. Mediated Multilingual Interactions. Suggestions for a game theoretic framework. Cu/Tus 2018 , 10 , 19–56. [ Google Scholar ]
• Guggenbühl, A. Bargaining in the European Union: Theoretical and Practical Perspectives on Multilateral Negotiation Processes. Stud. Univ. Babes-Bolyai-Stud. Eur. 2018 , 63 , 339–380. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Chukwu, E.; Adu-Baah, A.; Niaz, M.; Nwagwu, U.; Chukwu, M.U. Navigating Ethical Supply Chains: The Intersection of Diplomatic Management and Theological Ethics. Int. J. Multidiscip. Sci. Arts 2023 , 2 , 127–139. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kwon, Y.; Pongmala, K.; Qin, K.; Klages-Mundt, A.; Jovanovic, P.; Parlour, C.; Gervais, A.; Song, D. What Drives the (In)stability of a Stablecoin? arXiv 2023 . [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Koçak, Ö.; Puranam, P. Decoding Culture: Tools for Behavioral Strategists. Strategy Sci. 2023 , 9 , 18–37. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bednar, J.; Page, S.E. When Order Affects Performance: Culture, Behavioral Spillovers, and Institutional Path Dependence. Am. Political Sci. Rev. 2018 , 112 , 82–98. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Algan, Y.; Malgouyres, C.; Mayer, T.; Thoenig, M. The Economic Incentives of Cultural Transmission: Spatial Evidence from Naming Patterns Across France. Econ. J. 2021 , 132 , 437–470. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Venkatesh, V.G.; Zhang, A.; Deakins, E.; Mani, V. Drivers of sub-supplier social sustainability compliance: An emerging economy perspective. Supply Chain. Manag. Int. J. 2020 , 25 , 655–677. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Gephart, J.A.; Golden, C.D.; Asche, F.; Belton, B.; Brugere, C.; Froehlich, H.E.; Fry, J.P.; Halpern, B.S.; Hicks, C.C.; Jones, R.C.; et al. Scenarios for Global Aquaculture and Its Role in Human Nutrition. Rev. Fish. Sci. Aquac. 2020 , 29 , 122–138. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Clune, W.H.; Zehnder, A.J.B. The Three Pillars of Sustainability Framework: Approaches for Laws and Governance. J. Environ. Prot. 2018 , 9 , 211–240. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hunter, R.F.; Montes, F.; Murray, J.M.; Sanchez-Franco, S.C.; Montgomery, S.C.; Jaramillo, J.; Tate, C.; Kumar, R.; Dunne, L.; Ramalingam, A.; et al. MECHANISMS Study: Using Game Theory to Assess the Effects of Social Norms and Social Networks on Adolescent Smoking in Schools—Study Protocol. Front. Public Health 2020 , 8 , 377. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Gelfand, M.J.; Jackson, J.C.; Pan, X.; Nau, D.; Pieper, D.; Denison, E.; Dagher, M.; Lange PA, M.V.; Chiu, C.-Y.; Wang, M. The relationship between cultural tightness–looseness and COVID-19 cases and deaths: A global analysis. Lancet Planet. Health 2021 , 5 , 135–144. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Currie, T.E.; Campenni, M.; Flitton, A.; Njagi, T.; Ontiri, E.; Perret, C.; Walker, L. The cultural evolution and ecology of institutions. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 2021 , 376 , 20200047. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Nagatsu, M.; Lisciandra, C. Why Is Behavioral Game Theory a Game for Economists? The Concept of Beliefs in Equilibrium ; Springer: Singapore, 2021; pp. 289–308. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Cheng, H.; Agbanyo, G.K.; Zhu, T.; Pan, H. Internationalization of Multinational Companies and Cognitive Differences Across Cultures: A Neuroeconomic Perspective. Front. Psychol. 2022 , 13 , 807582. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Schulze-Horn, I.; Hueren, S.; Scheffler, P.; Schiele, H. Artificial Intelligence in Purchasing: Facilitating Mechanism Design-based Negotiations. Appl. Artif. Intell. 2020 , 34 , 618–642. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Burr, C.; Cristianini, N.; Ladyman, J. An Analysis of the Interaction Between Intelligent Software Agents and Human Users. Minds Mach. 2018 , 28 , 735–774. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Krueger, J.I.; Heck, P.R.; Evans, A.M.; DiDonato, T.E. Social game theory: Preferences, perceptions, and choices. Eur. Rev. Soc. Psychol. 2020 , 31 , 222–253. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Chang, S.L.; Piraveenan, M.; Pattison, P.; Prokopenko, M. Game theoretic modelling of infectious disease dynamics and intervention methods: A review. J. Biol. Dyn. 2020 , 14 , 57–89. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• DiMaggio, P. Social Structure, Institutions, and Cultural Goods: The Case of the United States , 1st ed.; Routledge: London, UK, 2021; pp. 133–166. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ye, M.; Zino, L.; Rizzo, A.; Cao, M. Game-theoretic modeling of collective decision making during epidemics. Phys. Rev. E 2021 , 104 , 024314. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sinayi, M.; Rasti-Barzoki, M. A game theoretic approach for pricing, greening, and social welfare policies in a supply chain with government intervention. J. Clean. Prod. 2018 , 196 , 1443–1458. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Moafi, M.; Ardeshiri, R.R.; Mudiyanselage, M.W.; Marzband, M.; Abusorrah, A.; Rawa, M.; Guerrero, J.M. Optimal coalition formation and maximum profit allocation for distributed energy resources in smart grids based on cooperative game theory. Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst. 2023 , 144 , 108492. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Cuypers, I.; Hennart, J.-F.; Silverman, B.; Ertug, G. Transaction Cost Theory: Past Progress, Current Challenges, and Suggestions for the Future. Acad. Manag. Ann. 2021 , 15 , 111–150. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Peng, R. The Approval and Rejection of Catholicism by Late Ming Chinese: An Analysis of Kouduo richao and Poxieji from the Perspective of Social Cooperation. Logos Pneuma 2017 , 47 , 225–257. [ Google Scholar ]
• von Flüe, L.; Efferson, C.; Vogt, S. Green preferences sustain greenwashing: Challenges in the cultural transition to a sustainable future. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B 2023 , 379 , 20220268. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Premkumar, P.; Bahan Chakrabarty, J.; Rajeev, A. Impact of sustained lockdown during COVID-19 pandemic on behavioural dynamics through evolutionary game theoretic model. Ann. Oper. Res. 2023 , 1–17. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Curry, O.S.; Alfano, M.; Brandt, M.J.; Pelican, C. Moral Molecules: Morality as a Combinatorial System. Rev. Philos. Psychol. 2021 , 13 , 1039–1058. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Mathur, S.; Dewani, P.P. Influence of cultural heritage on hotel prices, occupancy and profit. Tour. Econ. 2016 , 22 , 1014–1032. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Binesh, F.; Belarmino, A.; Singh, A.K.; Raab, C. Forecasting hotel room prices when entering turbulent times: A game-theoretic artificial neural network model. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 2024 , 36 , 1044–1065. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Mousavi, E.S.; Hafezalkotob, A.; Makui, A.; Sayadi, M.K. Hotel pricing decision in a competitive market under government intervention: A game theory approach. Int. J. Manag. Sci. Eng. Manag. 2021 , 16 , 83–93. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Chen, X. Location Strategies of Multinational Hotel Groups in China: An Application of Game Theory. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Plymouth, Plymouth, UK, 2022. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Roos, P.; Gelfand, M.; Nau, D.; Lun, J. Societal threat and cultural variation in the strength of social norms: An evolutionary basis. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 2015 , 129 , 14–23. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ding, F.; Ma, T. Dynamic Relationship Between Tourism and Homogeneity of Tourist Destinations. IEEE Access 2018 , 6 , 51470–51476. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Alipour, H.; Arefipour, T. Rethinking potentials of Co-management for sustainable common pool resources (CPR) and tourism: The case of a Mediterranean island. Ocean Coast. Manag. 2020 , 183 , 104993. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Gössling, S.; Hall, C.M.; Scott, D. The Routledge Handbook of Tourism and Sustainability ; Routledge: London, UK, 2015; pp. 92–104. [ Google Scholar ]
• Elsaesser, T.; Buckland, W.; Polan, D.; Jeong, S. The Mind-Game Film ; Routledge: London, UK, 2021; pp. 89–112. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• de Ley, H. The Name of the Game: Applying Game Theory in Literature. SubStance 1988 , 17 , 33. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Simons, J. Narrative, Games, and Theory. 2007. Available online: https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?repid=rep1andtype=pdfanddoi=f5ca89fcfd1fe50183268f2990a188a61439c5f7 (accessed on 20 May 2024).
• Pérez-Latorre, Ó.; Oliva, M.; Besalú, R. Videogame analysis: A social-semiotic approach. Soc. Semiot. 2017 , 27 , 586–603. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Juul, J. Half-Real: Video Games between Real Rules and Fictional Worlds ; MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2011. [ Google Scholar ]
• Azaria, A.; Richardson, A.; Rosenfeld, A. Autonomous agents and human cultures in the trust–revenge game. Auton. Agents Multi-Agent Syst. 2016 , 30 , 486–505. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• McAvoy, A.; Hauert, C. Asymmetric Evolutionary Games. PLoS Comput. Biol. 2015 , 11 , e1004349. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Bruner, J.P. Diversity, tolerance, and the social contract. Politics Philos. Econ. 2015 , 14 , 429–448. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Nishi, A. Evolution and social epidemiology. Soc. Sci. Med. 2015 , 145 , 132–137. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Ostrom, E. Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1990. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bednarik, P.; Linnerooth-Bayer, J.; Magnuszewski, P.; Dieckmann, U. A Game of Common-pool Resource Management: Effects of Communication, Risky Environment and Worldviews. Ecol. Econ. 2019 , 156 , 287–292. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kinzig, A.P.; Ehrlich, P.R.; Alston, L.J.; Arrow, K.; Barrett, S.; Buchman, T.G.; Daily, G.C.; Levin, B.; Levin, S.; Oppenheimer, M.; et al. Social Norms and Global Environmental Challenges: The Complex Interaction of Behaviors, Values, and Policy. BioScience 2013 , 63 , 164–175. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ostrom, E. Do institutions for collective action evolve? J. Bioecon. 2014 , 16 , 3–30. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Forsyth, T.; Johnson, C. Elinor Ostrom’s legacy: Governing the commons, and the rational choice controversy. Dev. Chang. 2014 , 45 , 1093–1110. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Montes, N.; Osman, N.; Sierra, C. A computational model of Ostrom’s Institutional Analysis and Development framework. Artif. Intell. 2022 , 311 , 103756. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Batie, S.; Mercuro, N. Alternative Institutional Structures ; Routledge: London, UK, 2008; pp. 66–94. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cumming, G.S.; Epstein, G.; Anderies, J.M.; Apetrei, C.I.; Baggio, J.; Bodin, Ö.; Chawla, S.; Clements, H.S.; Cox, M.; Egli, L.; et al. Advancing understanding of natural resource governance: A post-Ostrom research agenda. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2020 , 44 , 26–34. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• del Delgado-Serrano, M.M.; Oteros-Rozas, E.; Ruiz-Mallén, I.; Calvo-Boyero, D.; Ortiz-Guerrero, C.E.; Escalante-Semerena, R.I.; Corbera, E. Influence of community-based natural resource management strategies in the resilience of social-ecological systems. Reg. Environ. Chang. 2018 , 18 , 581–592. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• De, S.; Nau, D.; Gelfand, M. Understanding Norm Change: An Evolutionary Game-Theoretic Approach. 2017. Available online: https://www.ifaamas.org/Proceedings/aamas2017/pdfs/p1433.pdf (accessed on 25 April 2024).
• Bednar, J.; Page, S. Can Game(s) Theory Explain Culture? Ration. Soc. 2007 , 19 , 65–97. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Pan, X.; Gelfand, M.; Nau, D. Integrating evolutionary game theory and cross-cultural psychology to understand cultural dynamics. Am. Psychol. 2021 , 76 , 1054–1066. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Chen, Y.; Cao, X.; Liu KJ, R. Community detection in networks: A game-theoretic framework. EURASIP J. Adv. Signal Process. 2019 , 2019 , 60. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Fehr, E.; Schurtenberger, I. Normative foundations of human cooperation. Nat. Hum. Behav. 2018 , 2 , 458–468. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Yazan, D.M.; Yazdanpanah, V.; Fraccascia, L. Learning strategic cooperative behavior in industrial symbiosis: A game-theoretic approach integrated with agent-based simulation. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2020 , 29 , 2078–2091. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wang, J.; Wang, R.; Yu, F.; Wang, Z.; Li, Q. Learning continuous and consistent strategy promotes cooperation in prisoner’s dilemma game with mixed strategy. Appl. Math. Comput. 2020 , 370 , 124887. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hoffmann, W.; Lavie, D.; Reuer, J.J.; Shipilov, A. The interplay of competition and cooperation. Strateg. Manag. J. 2018 , 39 , 3033–3052. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Liang, W.; Song, H.; Sun, R. Can a professional learning community facilitate teacher well-being in China? The mediating role of teaching self-efficacy. Educ. Stud. 2020 , 48 , 358–377. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• van Kleef, G.A.; Wanders, F.; Stamkou, E.; Homan, A.C. The social dynamics of breaking the rules: Antecedents and consequences of norm-violating behavior. Curr. Opin. Psychol. 2015 , 6 , 25–31. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Berger, J.; Hevenstone, D. Norm enforcement in the city revisited: An international field experiment of altruistic punishment, norm maintenance, and broken windows. Ration. Soc. 2016 , 28 , 299–319. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Pickup, M.A.; Kimbrough, E.O.; Rooij, E.A. Identity and the Self-Reinforcing Effects of Norm Compliance. South. Econ. J. 2020 , 86 , 1222–1240. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Guilbeault, D.; Becker, J.; Centola, D. Complex Contagions: A Decade in Review. In Complex Spreading Phenomena in Social Systems ; Computational Social Sciences; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2018; pp. 3–25. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Scholtes, I. When is a Network a Network? arXiv 2017 . [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zhang, Y.; Wu, Y. How behaviors spread in dynamic social networks. Comput. Math. Organ. Theory 2012 , 18 , 419–444. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Gulati, R.; Sytch, M.; Tatarynowicz, A. The Rise and Fall of Small Worlds: Exploring the Dynamics of Social Structure. Organ. Sci. 2012 , 23 , 449–471. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zhang, Y.; Leezer, J. Emergence of Social Norms in Complex Networks. Int. Conf. Comput. Sci. Eng. 2009 , 4 , 549–555. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wellman, B.; Frank, K. Network Capital in a Multilevel World: Getting Support from Personal Communities , 1st ed.; Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group: Abingdon, UK, 2017; pp. 233–273. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rasmussen, K.; Yaouzis, N. The Tyranny of Political Correctness? A Game-Theoretic Model of Social Norms and Implicit Bias. J. Appl. Philos. 2023 , 41 , 122–144. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Liu, Q.; Zheng, H.; Li, W.; Liu, J.; Yan, B.; Su, H. A Model of Minority Influence in Preferential Norm Formation. In Knowledge and Systems Sciences ; Communications in Computer and Information Science; Springer: Singapore, 2019; pp. 106–121. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Henrich, J. Game Theory in Cultural Evolution. In Nobel Symposium. 2021. Available online: https://henrich.fas.harvard.edu/files/henrich/files/nobel_symposium_revised_final.pdf (accessed on 25 April 2024).
• Barrett, B.J. Equifinality in empirical studies of cultural transmission. Behav. Process. 2019 , 161 , 129–138. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Brooks, J.S.; Waring, T.M.; Borgerhoff Mulder, M.; Richerson, P.J. Applying cultural evolution to sustainability challenges: An introduction to the special issue. Sustain. Sci. 2018 , 13 , 1–8. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Cantor, M.; Chimento, M.; Smeele, S.Q.; He, P.; Papageorgiou, D.; Aplin, L.M.; Farine, D.R. Social network architecture and the tempo of cumulative cultural evolution. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 2021 , 288 , 20203107. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Przepiorka, W.; Diekmann, A. Parochial cooperation and the emergence of signalling norms. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B 2021 , 376 , 20200294. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zhang, J.; Centola, D. Social Networks and Health: New Developments in Diffusion, Online and Offline. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2019 , 45 , 91–109. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Rehman, A.U.; Jiang, A.; Rehman, A.; Paul, A.; Din, S.; Sadiq, M.T. Identification and role of opinion leaders in information diffusion for online discussion network. J. Ambient. Intell. Humaniz. Comput. 2020 , 14 , 15301–15313. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Le Coent, P.; Préget, R.; Thoyer, S. Farmers Follow the Herd: A Theoretical Model on Social Norms and Payments for Environmental Services. Environ. Resour. Econ. 2021 , 78 , 287–306. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bicchieri, C.; Sontuoso, A. Game-Theoretic Accounts of Social Norms: The Role of Normative Expectations ; Edward Elgar Publishing: Cheltenham, UK, 2020; pp. 241–255. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Roman, S. Dynamic and Game Theoretic Modelling of Societal Growth, Structure and Collapse. 2018. Available online: https://eprints.soton.ac.uk/447928/ (accessed on 25 April 2024).
• Golman, R.; Bugbee, E.H.; Jain, A.; Saraf, S. Hipsters and the cool: A game theoretic analysis of identity expression, trends, and fads. Psychol. Rev. 2022 , 129 , 4–17. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Merrick, K. Evolution of intrinsic motives in a multi-player common pool resource game. In Proceedings of the IEEE Symposium on Computational Intelligence for Human-like Intelligence (CIHLI), Orlando, FL, USA, 9–12 December 2014; pp. 1–8. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Tarba, S.Y.; Ahammad, M.F.; Junni, P.; Stokes, P.; Morag, O. The Impact of Organizational Culture Differences, Synergy Potential, and Autonomy Granted to the Acquired High-Tech Firms on the MandA Performance. Group Organ. Manag. 2019 , 44 , 483–520. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• AOTA. Educator’s Guide for Addressing Cultural Awareness, Humility, and Dexterity in Occupational Therapy Curricula. Am. J. Occup. Ther. 2020 , 74 (Suppl. 3), 7413420003p1–7413420003p19. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Adler, N.J.; Graham, J.L. Cross-cultural Interaction: The International Comparison Fallacy? In Language in International Business ; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2017; pp. 33–58. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Rostovtseva, V.V.; Weissing, F.J.; Mezentseva, A.A.; Butovskaya, M.L. Sex differences in cooperativeness—An experiment with Buryats in Southern Siberia. PLoS ONE 2020 , 15 , e0239129. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Bartke, S.; Bosworth, S.J.; Snower, D.J.; Chierchia, G. Motives and comprehension in a public goods game with induced emotions. Theory Decis. 2019 , 86 , 205–238. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Legare, C.H. Cumulative cultural learning: Development and diversity. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2017 , 114 , 7877–7883. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Zhang, M.; Huang, Y.; Jin, Y.; Bao, Y. Government regulation strategy, leading firms’ innovation strategy, and following firms imitation strategy: An analysis based on evolutionary game theory. PLoS ONE 2023 , 18 , e0286730. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Liu, Z.; Zhou, Z.; Chen, M.; Liao, S. Business Model Innovation or Imitation? Strategy Study Based on Real Option Game Theory. Foreign Econ. Manag. 2018 , 40 , 79–91. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Crawford, V.P. New Directions for Modelling Strategic Behavior: Game-Theoretic Models of Communication, Coordination, and Cooperation in Economic Relationships. J. Econ. Perspect. 2016 , 30 , 131–150. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Gunia, B.C.; Brett, J.M.; Gelfand, M.J. The science of culture and negotiation. Curr. Opin. Psychol. 2016 , 8 , 78–83. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Gaffal, M.; Padilla Gálvez, J. Bargaining and Game Theory ; Springer Nature: Cham, Switzerland, 2024; pp. 41–60. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Binmore, K. Bargaining and fairness. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2014 , 111 (Suppl. 3), 10785–10788. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Caputo, A.; Ayoko, O.B.; Amoo, N.; Menke, C. The relationship between cultural values, cultural intelligence and negotiation styles. J. Bus. Res. 2019 , 99 , 23–36. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Paquin, S. Trade Paradiplomacy and the Politics of International Economic Law: The Inclusion of Quebec and the Exclusion of Wallonia in the CETA Negotiations. New Political Econ. 2021 , 27 , 597–609. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hegetschweiler, K.T.; de Vries, S.; Arnberger, A.; Bell, S.; Brennan, M.; Siter, N.; Olafsson, A.S.; Voigt, A.; Hunziker, M. Linking demand and supply factors in identifying cultural ecosystem services of urban green infrastructures: A review of European studies. Urban For. Urban Green. 2017 , 21 , 48–59. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Awan, U.; Kraslawski, A.; Huiskonen, J. Governing Interfirm Relationships for Social Sustainability: The Relationship between Governance Mechanisms, Sustainable Collaboration, and Cultural Intelligence. Sustainability 2018 , 10 , 4473. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wang, L.; Schuetz, C.G.; Cai, D. Choosing Response Strategies in Social Media Crisis Communication: An Evolutionary Game Theory Perspective. Inf. Manag. 2021 , 58 , 103371. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Acemoglu, D.; Robinson, J.A. Culture, Institutions and Social Equilibria: A Framework ; National Bureau of Economic Research: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2021. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wong, D.B. Soup, Harmony, and Disagreement. J. Am. Philos. Assoc. 2020 , 6 , 139–155. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Claw, K.G.; Anderson, M.Z.; Begay, R.L.; Tsosie, K.S.; Fox, K.; Garrison, N.A. A framework for enhancing ethical genomic research with Indigenous communities. Nat. Commun. 2018 , 9 , 2957. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Tang, B. Deliberating Governance in Chinese Urban Communities. China J. 2015 , 73 , 84–107. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Domoto, Y. An Action Research on Collaborative Curriculum Development of English Lessons in Elementary and Junior High Schools. 2010. Available online: https://hyogo-u.repo.nii.ac.jp/record/5578/files/YY-M07150D.pdf (accessed on 26 April 2024).
• O’Reilly, C.; Zhang, Y. Post-genocide justice: The Gacaca courts. Dev. Policy Rev. 2018 , 36 , 561–576. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Thomson, S. Rwanda’s Gacaca Courts. Témoigner Entre Hist. Mémoire 2015 , 121 , 143–144. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ugorji, B. Indigenous Dispute Resolution and National Reconciliation: Learning from the Gacaca Courts in Rwanda. J. Living Together 2019 , 6 , 153–161. [ Google Scholar ]
• Baronchelli, A. The emergence of consensus: A primer. R. Soc. Open Sci. 2018 , 5 , 172189. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Menon, A. Bringing cognition into strategic interactions: Strategic mental models and open questions. Strateg. Manag. J. 2018 , 39 , 168–192. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Farrow, K.; Grolleau, G.; Ibanez, L. Social Norms and Pro-environmental Behavior: A Review of the Evidence. Ecol. Econ. 2017 , 140 , 1–13. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Manfredo, M.J.; Bruskotter, J.T.; Teel, T.L.; Fulton, D.; Schwartz, S.H.; Arlinghaus, R.; Oishi, S.; Uskul, A.K.; Redford, K.; Kitayama, S.; et al. Why social values cannot be changed for the sake of conservation. Conserv. Biol. 2017 , 31 , 772–780. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Apesteguia, J.; Huck, S.; Oechssler, J.; Weidenholzer, E.; Weidenholzer, S. Imitation of Peers in Children and Adults. Games 2018 , 9 , 11. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Cartwright, E.; Patel, A. Imitation and the Incentive to Contribute Early in a Sequential Public Good Game. J. Public Econ. Theory 2010 , 12 , 691–708. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Graeber, D. Culture as Creative Refusal. Camb. J. Anthropol. 2013 , 31 , 1–19. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• DeAngelis, D.L.; Diaz, S.G. Decision-Making in Agent-Based Modeling: A Current Review and Future Prospectus. Front. Ecol. Evol. 2019 , 6 , 237. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• de Marchi, S.; Page, S.E. Agent-Based Models. Annu. Rev. Political Sci. 2014 , 17 , 1–20. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Carrignon, S.; Coto-Sarmiento, M.; Bentley, R.A.; O’Brien, M.J. An introduction to papers from workshops on the evolution of cultural complexity. Adapt. Behav. 2020 , 28 , 317–322. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Tripodi, R. Evolutionary Game Theoretic Models for Natural Language Processing. 2016. Available online: http://dspace.unive.it/handle/10579/8351 (accessed on 25 April 2024).
• Bromham, L.; Dinnage, R.; Skirgård, H.; Ritchie, A.; Cardillo, M.; Meakins, F.; Greenhill, S.; Hua, X. Global predictors of language endangerment and the future of linguistic diversity. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 2021 , 6 , 163–173. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sperlich, S.; Uriarte, J.-R. The economics of minority language use: Theory and empirical evidence for a language game model. arXiv 2019 . [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• John, A. Dynamic Models of Language Evolution: The Economic Perspective. Palgrave Macmillan: London, UK, 2016; pp. 101–120. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Khosravifar, B.; Bentahar, J.; Mizouni, R.; Otrok, H.; Alishahi, M.; Thiran, P. Agent-based game-theoretic model for collaborative web services: Decision making analysis. Expert Syst. Appl. 2013 , 40 , 3207–3219. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Akdeniz, A.; van Veelen, M. Mutation-selection Equilibria for the Ultimatum Game. SSRN Electron. J. 2021 , 74 , 1. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Calvillo, D.P.; Burgeno, J.N. Cognitive reflection predicts the acceptance of unfair ultimatum game offers. Judgm. Decis. Mak. 2015 , 10 , 332–341. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Segal, N.L.; Hershberger, S.L. Cooperation and Competition between Twins. Evol. Hum. Behav. 1999 , 20 , 29–51. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Feng, C.; Luo, Y.-J.; Krueger, F. Neural signatures of fairness-related normative decision making in the ultimatum game: A coordinate-based meta-analysis. Hum. Brain Mapp. 2015 , 36 , 591–602. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Martin, T.; Hofman, J.M.; Sharma, A.; Anderson, A.; Watts, D.J. Exploring limits to prediction in complex social systems. In Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on World Wide Web—WWW ’16, Montreal, QC, Canada, 11–15 April 2016; pp. 683–694. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wei, Y.; Liu, J.; Lai, X.; Hu, Y. Which determinant is the most informative in forecasting crude oil market volatility: Fundamental, speculation, or uncertainty? Energy Econ. 2017 , 68 , 141–150. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ganbat, M.; Batbaatar, E.; Bazarragchaa, G.; Ider, T.; Gantumur, E.; Dashkhorol, L.; Altantsatsralt, K.; Nemekh, M.; Dashdondog, E.; Namsrai, O.-E. Effect of Psychological Factors on Credit Risk: A Case Study of the Microlending Service in Mongolia. Behav. Sci. 2021 , 11 , 47. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Jia, S.; Zhang, W.; Li, P.; Feng, T.; Li, H. Attitude toward money modulates outcome processing: An ERP study. Soc. Neurosci. 2013 , 8 , 43–51. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sun, C.; Chen, H.; Liao, R. Research on Incentive Mechanism and Strategy Choice for Passing on Intangible Cultural Heritage from Masters to Apprentices. Sustainability 2021 , 13 , 5245. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hafiz, A.; Xu, X.; Sun, C. Dynamics of group grievances from a global cohesion perspective. Socio-Econ. Plan. Sci. 2023 , 87 , 101606. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bianchi, F.; Squazzoni, F. Agent-based models in sociology. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Comput. Stat. 2015 , 7 , 284–306. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Miller, K.A.; Munro, G.R.; Sumaila, U.R.; Cheung, W.W.L. Governing Marine Fisheries in a Changing Climate: A Game-Theoretic Perspective. Can. J. Agric. Econ./Rev. Can. d’Agroecon. 2013 , 61 , 309–334. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bednar, J.; Page, S.E. Complex Adaptive Systems and Comparative Politics: Modeling the Interaction between Institutions and Culture. Chin. Political Sci. Rev. 2016 , 1 , 448–471. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lee, H.; Fawcett, J.; DeMarco, R. Storytelling/narrative theory to address health communication with minority populations. Appl. Nurs. Res. 2016 , 30 , 58–60. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Wortmann, C. Can stories change a culture? Ind. Commer. Train. 2008 , 40 , 134–141. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Gelfand, M.J. Universal and culture-specific patterns of tightness-looseness across the 31 Chinese provinces. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2019 , 116 , 6522–6524. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Richerson, P.; Baldini, R.; Bell, A.V.; Demps, K.; Frost, K.; Hillis, V.; Mathew, S.; Newton, E.K.; Naar, N.; Newson, L.; et al. Cultural group selection plays an essential role in explaining human cooperation: A sketch of the evidence. Behav. Brain Sci. 2016 , 39 , e30–e71. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Guay-Bélanger, D. Assembling Auras: Towards a Methodology for the Preservation and Study of Video Games as Cultural Heritage Artefacts. Games Cult. 2021 , 17 , 659–678. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Styhre, A.; Szczepanska, A.M.; Remneland-Wikhamn, B. Consecrating video games as cultural artifacts: Intellectual legitimation as a source of industry renewal. Scand. J. Manag. 2018 , 34 , 22–28. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kuo, Y.-T.; Kuo, Y.-C.; Whittinghill, D.M. Exploring the Reliability of a Cross-Cultural Model for Digital Games: A Systematic Review. Int. J. Emerg. Technol. Learn. (IJET) 2022 , 17 , 217–234. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Dubbelman, T. Narrative Game Mechanics. In Interactive Storytelling ; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2016; pp. 39–50. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• de Mul, J. The Game of Life: Narrative and Ludic Identity Formation in Computer Games ; Palgrave Macmillan: London, UK, 2015; pp. 159–187. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Romanzi, V. Staying Human in the Post-Apocalypse: The Frontiers of Individualism in The Last of Us and Its Sequel. J. Austrian Assoc. Am. Stud. 2023 , 4 , 311–330. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Mochocki, M.; Koskimaa, R. Story beats in videogames as value-driven choice-based unit operations. Int. J. Eur. Film. 2021 , 29 , 5–31. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Tompkins, J.E.; Martins, N. Masculine Pleasures as Normalized Practices: Character Design in the Video Game Industry. Games Cult. 2021 , 17 , 399–420. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• McKernan, B. The meaning of a game: Stereotypes, video game commentary and color-blind racism. Am. J. Cult. Sociol. 2015 , 3 , 224–253. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Daniel, M.; Garry, C. Video Games as Culture ; Routledge: London, UK, 2018. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Vlachopoulos, D.; Makri, A. The effect of games and simulations on higher education: A systematic literature review. Int. J. Educ. Technol. High. Educ. 2017 , 14 , 22. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Seibt, J. Towards an Ontology of Simulated Social Interaction: Varieties of the “As If” for Robots and Humans. In Sociality and Normativity for Robots ; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2017; pp. 11–39. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Johnson, M.R.; Mejia, R. Making Science Fiction Real: Neoliberalism, Real-Life and Esports in Eve Online. J. Virtual Worlds Res. 2018 , 10 , 5–10. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Taylor, N.; Bergstrom, K.; Jenson, J.; de Castell, S. Alienated Playbour: Relations of Production in EVE Online. Games Cult. 2015 , 10 , 365–388. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Dwivedi, Y.K. Metaverse beyond the hype: Multidisciplinary perspectives on emerging challenges, opportunities, and agenda for research, practice and policy. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2022 , 66 , 102542. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Giokarini, A. Level Design Complexity in Match-Three Games: A Study of Level Design Structural Complexity in Modern, Casual, Mobile Match-Three Puzzle Games. 2020. Available online: https://aaltodoc.aalto.fi/handle/123456789/44811 (accessed on 25 April 2024).
• Chesham, A.; Wyss, P.; Müri, R.M.; Mosimann, U.P.; Nef, T. What Older People Like to Play: Genre Preferences and Acceptance of Casual Games. JMIR Serious Games 2017 , 5 , e7025. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hamari, J.; Alha, K.; Järvelä, S.; Kivikangas, J.M.; Koivisto, J.; Paavilainen, J. Why do players buy in-game content? An empirical study on concrete purchase motivations. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2017 , 68 , 538–546. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Morschheuser, B.; Riar, M.; Hamari, J.; Maedche, A. How games induce cooperation? A study on the relationship between game features and we-intentions in an augmented reality game. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2017 , 77 , 169–183. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bogost, I. The secret lives of MOOCs. In MOOCs and Their Afterlives: Experiments in Scale and Access in Higher Education ; The University Of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL, USA, 2017. [ Google Scholar ]
• Richard, G.T. Video Games, Gender, Diversity, and Learning as Cultural Practice: Implications for Equitable Learning and Computing Participation through Games. Educ. Technol. 2017 , 57 , 36–43. [ Google Scholar ]
• Samuelson, L. Game Theory in Economics and Beyond. J. Econ. Perspect. 2016 , 30 , 107–130. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Roth, A.E.; Wilson, R.B. How Market Design Emerged from Game Theory: A Mutual Interview. J. Econ. Perspect. 2019 , 33 , 118–143. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ross, D. Game Theory (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy). 2023. Available online: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/game-theory/ (accessed on 25 April 2024).
• Creanza, N.; Kolodny, O.; Feldman, M.W. Cultural evolutionary theory: How culture evolves and why it matters. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2017 , 114 , 7782–7789. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Petronela, T. The Importance of the Intangible Cultural Heritage in the Economy. Procedia Econ. Financ. 2016 , 39 , 731–736. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Vegheș, C. Cultural Heritage and Nation Branding: A Marketing Driver for Sustainable Development. Eur. J. Sustain. Dev. 2022 , 11 , 42. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bassano, C.; Barile, S.; Piciocchi, P.; Spohrer, J.C.; Iandolo, F.; Fisk, R. Storytelling about places: Tourism marketing in the digital age. Cities 2019 , 87 , 10–20. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Okpoko, P.U.; Emeafor, O.F.; Ukaegbu, M.O.; Obianuju Onyeka, A. Propelling enduring heritage tourism in Nigeria: Lessons from Rome. Int. J. Inst. Afr. Stud. 2021 , 22 , 1–15. [ Google Scholar ]
• Galbo, J. Renovating the Roman Colosseum: Politics, urban restructuring, and the value of heritage in neoliberal times. Eur. J. Cult. Political Sociol. 2019 , 6 , 288–316. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Labadi, S.; Giliberto, F.; Rosetti, I.; Shetabi, L.; Yildirim, E. Heritage and the Sustainable Development Goals: Policy Guidance for Heritage and Development Actors. ICOMOS. 2021. Available online: https://kar.kent.ac.uk/89231/ (accessed on 25 April 2024).
• Guzmán, P.C.; Roders AR, P.; Colenbrander, B.J.F. Measuring links between cultural heritage management and sustainable urban development: An overview of global monitoring tools. Cities 2017 , 60 , 192–201. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hao, Z.; Wang, Y.; Yang, Y.; Gong, E. Evolutionary game analysis of stakeholders in Villages-in-City reconstruction: Pazhou village as an example. Int. J. Constr. Manag. 2023 , 24 , 31–43. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Qingyun, P.; Mu, Z. Evolutionary game analysis of land income distribution in tourism development. Tour. Econ. 2021 , 27 , 670–687. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Collins, B.C.; Kumral, M. Game theory for analyzing and improving environmental management in the mining industry. Resour. Policy 2020 , 69 , 101860. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Nocca, F. The Role of Cultural Heritage in Sustainable Development: Multidimensional Indicators as Decision-Making Tool. Sustainability 2017 , 9 , 1882. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wang, X.; Yang, Y.; Zhuang, J. Pricing Decisions with Social Interactions: A Game-Theoretic Model. Decis. Anal. 2022 , 20 , 40–54. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hafezalkotob, A.; Alavi, A.; Makui, A. Government financial intervention in green and regular supply chains: Multi-level game theory approach. Int. J. Manag. Sci. Eng. Manag. 2015 , 11 , 167–177. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Jiang, K.; You, D.; Merrill, R.; Li, Z. Implementation of a multi-agent environmental regulation strategy under Chinese fiscal decentralization: An evolutionary game theoretical approach. J. Clean. Prod. 2019 , 214 , 902–915. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Yang, X.; Zhang, J.; Shen, G.Q.; Yan, Y. Incentives for green retrofits: An evolutionary game analysis on Public-Private-Partnership reconstruction of buildings. J. Clean. Prod. 2019 , 232 , 1076–1092. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Chen, W.; Hu, Z.-H. Using evolutionary game theory to study governments and manufacturers’ behavioral strategies under various carbon taxes and subsidies. J. Clean. Prod. 2018 , 201 , 123–141. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ercolano, S.; Gaeta, G.L.; Parenti, B. Pompeii dilemma: A motivation-based analysis of tourists’ preference for “superstar” archaeological attractors or less renowned archaeological sites in the Vesuvius area. Int. J. Tour. Res. 2018 , 20 , 345–354. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ciardiello, F.; Genovese, A.; Luo, S.; Sgalambro, A. A game-theoretic multi-stakeholder model for cost allocation in urban consolidation centres. Ann. Oper. Res. 2021 , 324 , 663–686. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Rahmati, Y.; Talebpour, A.; Mittal, A.; Fishelson, J. Game Theory-Based Framework for Modeling Human–Vehicle Interactions on the Road. Transp. Res. Rec. 2020 , 2674 , 701–713. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kim, S. A Game-Theoretic Analysis of Inter-Korean Transboundary Rivers. 13. 2018. Available online: https://archives.kdischool.ac.kr/handle/11125/34573 (accessed on 25 April 2024).
• Almalki, S. Integrating Quantitative and Qualitative Data in Mixed Methods Research—Challenges and Benefits. J. Educ. Learn. 2016 , 5 , 288–296. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Peleckis, K. The Use of Game Theory for Making Rational Decisions in Business Negations: A Conceptual Model. Entrep. Bus. Econ. Rev. 2015 , 3 , 105–121. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Chivers, C. Keeping It Real: Experimental Game Theory and Social Ontology ; University of Sydney: Camperdown, Australia, 2015; Available online: https://ses.library.usyd.edu.au/bitstream/handle/2123/14442/CHIVERS_keeping_it_real.pdf?sequence=1 (accessed on 25 April 2024).
• Piñero, I.; San-José, J.T.; Rodríguez, P.; Losáñez, M.M. Multi-criteria decision-making for grading the rehabilitation of heritage sites. Application in the historic center of La Habana. J. Cult. Herit. 2017 , 26 , 144–152. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Miah, S.J.; Vu, H.Q.; Gammack, J.; McGrath, M. A Big Data Analytics Method for Tourist Behaviour Analysis. Inf. Manag. 2017 , 54 , 771–785. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zhu, G.-Y.; Zhang, W.-B. Optimal foraging algorithm for global optimization. Appl. Soft Comput. 2017 , 51 , 294–313. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• DeLong, J.P. Optimal Foraging ; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2021; pp. 79–88. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bettinger, R.L.; Grote, M.N. Marginal value theorem, patch choice, and human foraging response in varying environments. J. Anthropol. Archaeol. 2016 , 42 , 79–87. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Svizzero, S. Foraging Wild Resources: Evolving Goals of an Ubiquitous Human Behavior. Anthropology 2016 , 4 , 2–7. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Dorfman, A.; Hills, T.T.; Scharf, I. A guide to area-restricted search: A foundational foraging behaviour. Biol. Rev. 2022 , 97 , 2076–2089. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Addicott, M.A.; Pearson, J.M.; Sweitzer, M.M.; Barack, D.L.; Platt, M.L. A Primer on Foraging and the Explore/Exploit Trade-Off for Psychiatry Research. Neuropsychopharmacology 2017 , 42 , 1931–1939. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Pyke, G.H.; Starr, C.K. Optimal Foraging Theory. In Encyclopedia of Social Insects ; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2021; pp. 677–685. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Davis, G.H.; Crofoot, M.C.; Farine, D.R. Using optimal foraging theory to infer how groups make collective decisions. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2022 , 37 , 942–952. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Outram, A.K.; Bogaard, A. Subsistence and Society in Prehistory: New Directions in Economic Archaeology ; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2019. [ Google Scholar ]
• Clem, T.; Serge, S. Optimization theories of the transition from foraging to agriculture: A critical assessment and proposed alternatives. Soc. Evol. Hist. 2017 , 16 , 3–30. [ Google Scholar ]
• Tisdell, C.; Svizzero, S. Different Behavioral Explanations of the Neolithic Transition from Foraging to Agriculture: A Review. 2016. Available online: https://hal.univ-reunion.fr/hal-02147758/document (accessed on 25 April 2024).
• Morgan, C. Is it Intensification Yet? Current Archaeological Perspectives on the Evolution of Hunter-Gatherer Economies. J. Archaeol. Res. 2015 , 23 , 163–213. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Macrae, N. John von Neumann: The Scientific Genius Who Pioneered the Modern Computer, Game Theory, Nuclear Deterrence, and Much More ; Plunkett Lake Press: Lexington, MA, USA, 2019; Available online: https://books.google.com/books?hl=enandlr=andid=iF2mDwAAQBAJandoi=fndandpg=PT5anddq=game+theory+developed+in+the+Westandots=AqpwPux3Onandsig=_n8RQIyCaMylFL0ghqjmNB4MjWI (accessed on 10 May 2024).
• Lügger, K.; Geiger, I.; Neun, H.; Backhaus, K. When East meets West at the bargaining table: Adaptation, behavior and outcomes in intra- and intercultural German–Chinese business negotiations. J. Bus. Econ. 2015 , 85 , 15–43. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Aghion, P.; Guriev, S.; Jo, K. Chaebols and firm dynamics in Korea. Econ. Policy 2021 , 36 , 593–626. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Tomeczek, A.F. The evolution of Japanese keiretsu networks: A review and text network analysis of their perceptions in economics. Jpn. World Econ. 2022 , 62 , 101132. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Moro Visconti, R. Combining network theory with corporate governance: Converging models for connected stakeholders. Corp. Ownersh. Control 2019 , 17 , 125–139. Available online: http://hdl.handle.net/10807/143675 (accessed on 25 April 2024). [ CrossRef ]
• World Economic Forum. The Global Risks Report 2022. 2022. Available online: https://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_The_Global_Risks_Report_2022.pdf (accessed on 25 April 2024).
• Block, R.J.; Friedman, S.; Kaminski, M.R.; Levin, A. Justice on the Job: Perspectives on the Erosion of Collective Bargaining in the United States ; Upjohn Institute for Employment Research: Kalamazoo, MI, USA, 2006. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Yanochik, M.A.; King, J.T. The Classical Bargaining Model for Organized Labor. Atl. Econ. J. 2015 , 43 , 375–382. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Du, S.; Ma, F.; Fu, Z.; Zhu, L.; Zhang, J. Game-theoretic analysis for an emission-dependent supply chain in a “cap-and-trade” system. Ann. Oper. Res. 2015 , 228 , 135–149. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wood, A. The Politics of Policy Circulation: Unpacking the Relationship Between South African and South American Cities in the Adoption of Bus Rapid Transit. Antipode 2015 , 47 , 1062–1079. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Restifo, A. The History and Future of Peru’s Fast Growing Economy. Perceptions 2018 , 4 , 2–6. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sahakyan, D. EU Trade Policy Responses to the Proliferation of Preferential Trade Agreements in Latin America and East and Southeast Asia. Politics Policy 2016 , 44 , 74–96. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Nouri, E.; Georgila, K.; Traum, D. Culture-specific models of negotiation for virtual characters: Multi-attribute decision-making based on culture-specific values. AI Soc. 2017 , 32 , 51–63. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Debs, A.; Monteiro, N.P. Conflict and Cooperation on Nuclear Nonproliferation. Annu. Rev. Political Sci. 2017 , 20 , 331–349. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• James, C. Nuclear Arsenal Games: Coping with Proliferation in a World of Changing Rivalries. Can. J. Political Sci. 2000 , 33 , 723–746. [ Google Scholar ]
• Carrozzo Magli, A.; Della Posta, P.; Manfredi, P. The Tragedy of the Commons as a Prisoner’s Dilemma. Its Relevance for Sustainability Games. Sustainability 2021 , 13 , 8125. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hsu, S.-L. A Game-Theoretic Model of International Climate Change Negotiations. NYU Environ. Law J. 2011 , 19 , 14. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Endres, A. Game theory and global environmental policy. Poiesis Prax. 2004 , 3 , 123–139. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Dong, L. Towards Resilient Agriculture Value Chains: Challenges and Opportunities. Prod. Oper. Manag. 2020 , 30 , 666–675. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ahrendsen, B.L. Agricultural Trade Policy: “America First”? Appl. Stud. Agribus. Commer. 2017 , 11 , 89–93. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Namany, S.; Govindan, R.; Al-Ansari, T. Operationalising transboundary cooperation through game theory: An energy water food nexus approach for the Middle East and North Africa. Futures 2023 , 152 , 103198. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lacher, W. Libya’s Fragmentation: Structure and Process in Violent Conflict ; Bloomsbury Publishing: London, UK, 2020; Available online: https://books.google.com/books?hl=enandlr=andid=557GDwAAQBAJandoi=fndandpg=PR3anddq=joint+ventures+petroleum+industry+game-theoretic+models+loyalties+between+family+and+tribeandots=zMrFjoRaSGandsig=XH0Krh0bcWyUBe94QrfcJ1E23h8 (accessed on 25 April 2024).
• Nagurney, A.; Flores, E.A.; Soylu, C. A Generalized Nash Equilibrium network model for post-disaster humanitarian relief. Transp. Res. Part E Logist. Transp. Rev. 2016 , 95 , 1–18. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Tierney, M.J. Rising Powers and the Regime for Development Finance. Int. Stud. Rev. 2014 , 16 , 452–455. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Heywood, A. Key Concepts in Politics and International Relations. Macmillan Education: London UK, 2015. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Syed, D.; Shah, S.S. Strategy for Optimizing Human Capital Export from Pakistan: A Game-Theoretic Approach with a Focus on Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. Soc. Sci. Res. Netw. 2024 , 3–8. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kim, H.; Whitten-Woodring, J.; James, P. The Role of Media in the Repression–Protest Nexus. J. Confl. Resolut. 2015 , 59 , 1017–1042. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Przepiorka, W.; Rutten, C.; Buskens, V.; Szekely, A. How dominance hierarchies emerge from conflict: A game theoretic model and experimental evidence. Soc. Sci. Res. 2020 , 86 , 102393. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Merrick, K.; Hardhienata, M.; Shafi, K.; Hu, J. A Survey of Game Theoretic Approaches to Modelling Decision-Making in Information Warfare Scenarios. Future Internet 2016 , 8 , 34. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Burnett, H. Signalling games, sociolinguistic variation and the construction of style. Linguist. Philos. 2019 , 42 , 419–450. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Fujiwara-Greve, T. Non-Cooperative Game Theory ; Springer: Tokyo, Japan, 2016; Volume 1. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lo Prete, C.; Hobbs, B.F. A cooperative game theoretic analysis of incentives for microgrids in regulated electricity markets. Appl. Energy 2016 , 169 , 524–541. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Dhamo, S.; Perna, V.; Bregasi, L. Non-Cooperative and Repetitive Games for Urban Conflicts in Tirana: A Playful Collaborative System to Lower Social Tension. In IRIS Research Product Catalog ; Sapienza University of Rome: Rome, Italy, 2019; Volume 4. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sparks, A.; Burleigh, T.; Barclay, P. We can see inside: Accurate prediction of Prisoner’s Dilemma decisions in announced games following a face-to-face interaction. Evol. Hum. Behav. 2016 , 37 , 210–216. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Adlakha, S.; Johari, R.; Weintraub, G. Equilibria of dynamic games with many players: Existence, approximation, and market structure. J. Econ. Theory 2015 , 156 , 269–316. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zhu, Q.; Basar, T. Game-Theoretic Methods for Robustness, Security, and Resilience of Cyberphysical Control Systems: Games-in-Games Principle for Optimal Cross-Layer Resilient Control Systems. IEEE Control Syst. 2015 , 35 , 46–65. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zhang, Y.; Liu, F.; Wang, Z.; Chen, Y.; Feng, S.; Wu, Q.; Hou, Y. On Nash–Stackelberg–Nash games under decision-dependent uncertainties: Model and equilibrium. Automatica 2022 , 142 , 110401. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kong, X.; Xu, Q.; Zhu, T. Dynamic Evolution of Knowledge Sharing Behavior among Enterprises in the Cluster Innovation Network Based on Evolutionary Game Theory. Sustainability 2019 , 12 , 75. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Toni, B. Nash Limit Cycles: A Game-Theoretical Analysis of Cultural Integration in America. In STEAM-H: Science, Technology, Engineering, Agriculture, Mathematics and Health ; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2017; pp. 321–356. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• He, W.; Sun, Y. Dynamic games with (almost) perfect information. Theor. Econ. 2020 , 15 , 811–859. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Karagözoğlu, E.; Keskin, K.; Sağlam, Ç. Race meets bargaining in product development. MDE Manag. Decis. Econ. 2020 , 42 , 702–709. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lindensjö, K. A regular equilibrium solves the extended HJB system. Oper. Res. Lett. 2019 , 47 , 427–432. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Grimell, J. Aborted Transition between Two Dichotomous Cultures as Seen through Dialogical Self Theory. J. Constr. Psychol. 2020 , 33 , 188–206. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Henrich, J. Culture and social behavior. Curr. Opin. Behav. Sci. 2015 , 3 , 84–89. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Meyer, R. Intrinsic Unrealism: The Ineffectiveness of Neoclassical Economic Models. Gettysbg. Econ. Rev. 2023 , 12 , 103–113. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hansson, S.O. Can Uncertainty Be Quantified? Perspect. Sci. 2022 , 30 , 210–236. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Edelmann, A.; Wolff, T.; Montagne, D.; Bail, C.A. Computational Social Science and Sociology. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2020 , 46 , 61–81. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Wilson, R.C.; Collins, A.G. Ten simple rules for the computational modeling of behavioral data. eLife 2019 , 8 , e49547. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kriegeskorte, N.; Douglas, P.K. Cognitive computational neuroscience. Nat. Neurosci. 2018 , 21 , 1148–1160. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lena, J.C.; Lizardo, O.; McDonnell, T.E.; Mische, A.; Tavory, I.; Wherry, F.F.; Bail, C.A.; Frye, M. Measuring Culture ; Columbia University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2019. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Gould, R.K.; Klain, S.C.; Ardoin, N.M.; Satterfield, T.; Woodside, U.; Hannahs, N.; Daily, G.C.; Chan, K.M. A protocol for eliciting nonmaterial values through a cultural ecosystem services frame. Conserv. Biol. 2015 , 29 , 575–586. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Maheshwari, P.; Albert, R. Network model and analysis of the spread of COVID-19 with social distancing. Appl. Netw. Sci. 2020 , 5 , 100. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Yousefi Nooraie, R.; EM Sale, J.; Marin, A.; Ross, L.E. Social network analysis: An example of fusion between quantitative and qualitative methods. J. Mix. Methods Res. 2018 , 14 , 110–124. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Blazquez, D.; Domenech, J. Big Data sources and methods for social and economic analyses. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2018 , 130 , 99–113. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Barrett, L.F.; Adolphs, R.; Marsella, S.; Martinez, A.M.; Pollak, S.D. Emotional Expressions Reconsidered: Challenges to Inferring Emotion From Human Facial Movements. Psychol. Sci. Public Interest 2019 , 20 , 1–68. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Mollahosseini, A.; Hasani, B.; Mahoor, M.H. AffectNet: A Database for Facial Expression, Valence, and Arousal Computing in the Wild. IEEE Trans. Affect. Comput. 2019 , 10 , 18–31. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Thorhauge, M.; Cherchi, E.; Walker, J.L.; Rich, J. The role of intention as mediator between latent effects and behavior: Application of a hybrid choice model to study departure time choices. Transportation 2019 , 46 , 1421–1445. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]

Share and Cite

Wang, Y.; Morkūnas, M.; Wei, J. Strategic Synergies: Unveiling the Interplay of Game Theory and Cultural Dynamics in a Globalized World. Games 2024 , 15 , 24. https://doi.org/10.3390/g15040024

Wang Y, Morkūnas M, Wei J. Strategic Synergies: Unveiling the Interplay of Game Theory and Cultural Dynamics in a Globalized World. Games . 2024; 15(4):24. https://doi.org/10.3390/g15040024

Wang, Yufei, Mangirdas Morkūnas, and Jinzhao Wei. 2024. "Strategic Synergies: Unveiling the Interplay of Game Theory and Cultural Dynamics in a Globalized World" Games 15, no. 4: 24. https://doi.org/10.3390/g15040024

Article Metrics

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

Subscribe to receive issue release notifications and newsletters from MDPI journals