A literature review is a document or section of a document that collects key sources on a topic and discusses those sources in conversation with each other (also called synthesis ). The lit review is an important genre in many disciplines, not just literature (i.e., the study of works of literature such as novels and plays). When we say “literature review” or refer to “the literature,” we are talking about the research ( scholarship ) in a given field. You will often see the terms “the research,” “the scholarship,” and “the literature” used mostly interchangeably.
Where, when, and why would I write a lit review?
There are a number of different situations where you might write a literature review, each with slightly different expectations; different disciplines, too, have field-specific expectations for what a literature review is and does. For instance, in the humanities, authors might include more overt argumentation and interpretation of source material in their literature reviews, whereas in the sciences, authors are more likely to report study designs and results in their literature reviews; these differences reflect these disciplines’ purposes and conventions in scholarship. You should always look at examples from your own discipline and talk to professors or mentors in your field to be sure you understand your discipline’s conventions, for literature reviews as well as for any other genre.
A literature review can be a part of a research paper or scholarly article, usually falling after the introduction and before the research methods sections. In these cases, the lit review just needs to cover scholarship that is important to the issue you are writing about; sometimes it will also cover key sources that informed your research methodology.
Lit reviews can also be standalone pieces, either as assignments in a class or as publications. In a class, a lit review may be assigned to help students familiarize themselves with a topic and with scholarship in their field, get an idea of the other researchers working on the topic they’re interested in, find gaps in existing research in order to propose new projects, and/or develop a theoretical framework and methodology for later research. As a publication, a lit review usually is meant to help make other scholars’ lives easier by collecting and summarizing, synthesizing, and analyzing existing research on a topic. This can be especially helpful for students or scholars getting into a new research area, or for directing an entire community of scholars toward questions that have not yet been answered.
What are the parts of a lit review?
Most lit reviews use a basic introduction-body-conclusion structure; if your lit review is part of a larger paper, the introduction and conclusion pieces may be just a few sentences while you focus most of your attention on the body. If your lit review is a standalone piece, the introduction and conclusion take up more space and give you a place to discuss your goals, research methods, and conclusions separately from where you discuss the literature itself.
Introduction:
An introductory paragraph that explains what your working topic and thesis is
A forecast of key topics or texts that will appear in the review
Potentially, a description of how you found sources and how you analyzed them for inclusion and discussion in the review (more often found in published, standalone literature reviews than in lit review sections in an article or research paper)
Summarize and synthesize: Give an overview of the main points of each source and combine them into a coherent whole
Analyze and interpret: Don’t just paraphrase other researchers – add your own interpretations where possible, discussing the significance of findings in relation to the literature as a whole
Critically Evaluate: Mention the strengths and weaknesses of your sources
Write in well-structured paragraphs: Use transition words and topic sentence to draw connections, comparisons, and contrasts.
Conclusion:
Summarize the key findings you have taken from the literature and emphasize their significance
Connect it back to your primary research question
How should I organize my lit review?
Lit reviews can take many different organizational patterns depending on what you are trying to accomplish with the review. Here are some examples:
Chronological : The simplest approach is to trace the development of the topic over time, which helps familiarize the audience with the topic (for instance if you are introducing something that is not commonly known in your field). If you choose this strategy, be careful to avoid simply listing and summarizing sources in order. Try to analyze the patterns, turning points, and key debates that have shaped the direction of the field. Give your interpretation of how and why certain developments occurred (as mentioned previously, this may not be appropriate in your discipline — check with a teacher or mentor if you’re unsure).
Thematic : If you have found some recurring central themes that you will continue working with throughout your piece, you can organize your literature review into subsections that address different aspects of the topic. For example, if you are reviewing literature about women and religion, key themes can include the role of women in churches and the religious attitude towards women.
Qualitative versus quantitative research
Empirical versus theoretical scholarship
Divide the research by sociological, historical, or cultural sources
Theoretical : In many humanities articles, the literature review is the foundation for the theoretical framework. You can use it to discuss various theories, models, and definitions of key concepts. You can argue for the relevance of a specific theoretical approach or combine various theorical concepts to create a framework for your research.
What are some strategies or tips I can use while writing my lit review?
Any lit review is only as good as the research it discusses; make sure your sources are well-chosen and your research is thorough. Don’t be afraid to do more research if you discover a new thread as you’re writing. More info on the research process is available in our "Conducting Research" resources .
As you’re doing your research, create an annotated bibliography ( see our page on the this type of document ). Much of the information used in an annotated bibliography can be used also in a literature review, so you’ll be not only partially drafting your lit review as you research, but also developing your sense of the larger conversation going on among scholars, professionals, and any other stakeholders in your topic.
Usually you will need to synthesize research rather than just summarizing it. This means drawing connections between sources to create a picture of the scholarly conversation on a topic over time. Many student writers struggle to synthesize because they feel they don’t have anything to add to the scholars they are citing; here are some strategies to help you:
It often helps to remember that the point of these kinds of syntheses is to show your readers how you understand your research, to help them read the rest of your paper.
Writing teachers often say synthesis is like hosting a dinner party: imagine all your sources are together in a room, discussing your topic. What are they saying to each other?
Look at the in-text citations in each paragraph. Are you citing just one source for each paragraph? This usually indicates summary only. When you have multiple sources cited in a paragraph, you are more likely to be synthesizing them (not always, but often
Read more about synthesis here.
The most interesting literature reviews are often written as arguments (again, as mentioned at the beginning of the page, this is discipline-specific and doesn’t work for all situations). Often, the literature review is where you can establish your research as filling a particular gap or as relevant in a particular way. You have some chance to do this in your introduction in an article, but the literature review section gives a more extended opportunity to establish the conversation in the way you would like your readers to see it. You can choose the intellectual lineage you would like to be part of and whose definitions matter most to your thinking (mostly humanities-specific, but this goes for sciences as well). In addressing these points, you argue for your place in the conversation, which tends to make the lit review more compelling than a simple reporting of other sources.
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 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: Sep 4, 2024 9:40 AM
URL: https://libguides.usc.edu/writingguide
Have a language expert improve your writing
Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, automatically generate references for free.
Knowledge Base
Dissertation
What is a Literature Review? | Guide, Template, & Examples
What is a Literature Review? | Guide, Template, & Examples
Published on 22 February 2022 by Shona McCombes . Revised on 7 June 2022.
What is a literature review? A literature review is a survey of scholarly sources on a specific topic. It provides an overview of current knowledge, allowing you to identify relevant theories, methods, and gaps in the existing research.
There are five key steps to writing a literature review:
Search for relevant literature
Evaluate sources
Identify themes, debates and gaps
Outline the structure
Write your literature review
A good literature review doesn’t just summarise sources – it analyses, synthesises, and critically evaluates to give a clear picture of the state of knowledge on the subject.
Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text
Be assured that you'll submit flawless writing. Upload your document to correct all your mistakes.
Table of contents
Why write a literature review, examples of literature reviews, step 1: search for relevant literature, step 2: evaluate and select sources, step 3: identify themes, debates and gaps, step 4: outline your literature review’s structure, step 5: write your literature review, frequently asked questions about literature reviews, introduction.
Quick Run-through
Step 1 & 2
When you write a dissertation or thesis, you will have to conduct a literature review to situate your research within existing knowledge. The literature review gives you a chance to:
Demonstrate your familiarity with the topic and scholarly context
Develop a theoretical framework and methodology for your research
Position yourself in relation to other researchers and theorists
Show how your dissertation addresses a gap or contributes to a debate
You might also have to write a literature review as a stand-alone assignment. In this case, the purpose is to evaluate the current state of research and demonstrate your knowledge of scholarly debates around a topic.
The content will look slightly different in each case, but the process of conducting a literature review follows the same steps. We’ve written a step-by-step guide that you can follow below.
The only proofreading tool specialized in correcting academic writing
The academic proofreading tool has been trained on 1000s of academic texts and by native English editors. Making it the most accurate and reliable proofreading tool for students.
Correct my document today
Writing literature reviews can be quite challenging! A good starting point could be to look at some examples, depending on what kind of literature review you’d like to write.
Example literature review #1: “Why Do People Migrate? A Review of the Theoretical Literature” ( Theoretical literature review about the development of economic migration theory from the 1950s to today.)
Example literature review #2: “Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines” ( Methodological literature review about interdisciplinary knowledge acquisition and production.)
Example literature review #3: “The Use of Technology in English Language Learning: A Literature Review” ( Thematic literature review about the effects of technology on language acquisition.)
Example literature review #4: “Learners’ Listening Comprehension Difficulties in English Language Learning: A Literature Review” ( Chronological literature review about how the concept of listening skills has changed over time.)
You can also check out our templates with literature review examples and sample outlines at the links below.
Download Word doc Download Google doc
Before you begin searching for literature, you need a clearly defined topic .
If you are writing the literature review section of a dissertation or research paper, you will search for literature related to your research objectives and questions .
If you are writing a literature review as a stand-alone assignment, you will have to choose a focus and develop a central question to direct your search. Unlike a dissertation research question, this question has to be answerable without collecting original data. You should be able to answer it based only on a review of existing publications.
Make a list of keywords
Start by creating a list of keywords related to your research topic. Include each of the key concepts or variables you’re interested in, and list any synonyms and related terms. You can add to this list if you discover new keywords in the process of your literature search.
Social media, Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, Snapchat, TikTok
Body image, self-perception, self-esteem, mental health
Generation Z, teenagers, adolescents, youth
Search for relevant sources
Use your keywords to begin searching for sources. Some databases to search for journals and articles include:
Your university’s library catalogue
Google Scholar
Project Muse (humanities and social sciences)
Medline (life sciences and biomedicine)
EconLit (economics)
Inspec (physics, engineering and computer science)
You can use boolean operators to help narrow down your search:
Read the abstract to find out whether an article is relevant to your question. When you find a useful book or article, you can check the bibliography to find other relevant sources.
To identify the most important publications on your topic, take note of recurring citations. If the same authors, books or articles keep appearing in your reading, make sure to seek them out.
You probably won’t be able to read absolutely everything that has been written on the topic – you’ll have to evaluate which sources are most relevant to your questions.
For each publication, ask yourself:
What question or problem is the author addressing?
What are the key concepts and how are they defined?
What are the key theories, models and methods? Does the research use established frameworks or take an innovative approach?
What are the results and conclusions of the study?
How does the publication relate to other literature in the field? Does it confirm, add to, or challenge established knowledge?
How does the publication contribute to your understanding of the topic? What are its key insights and arguments?
What are the strengths and weaknesses of the research?
Make sure the sources you use are credible, and make sure you read any landmark studies and major theories in your field of research.
You can find out how many times an article has been cited on Google Scholar – a high citation count means the article has been influential in the field, and should certainly be included in your literature review.
The scope of your review will depend on your topic and discipline: in the sciences you usually only review recent literature, but in the humanities you might take a long historical perspective (for example, to trace how a concept has changed in meaning over time).
Remember that you can use our template to summarise and evaluate sources you’re thinking about using!
Take notes and cite your sources
As you read, you should also begin the writing process. Take notes that you can later incorporate into the text of your literature review.
It’s important to keep track of your sources with references to avoid plagiarism . It can be helpful to make an annotated bibliography, where you compile full reference information and write a paragraph of summary and analysis for each source. This helps you remember what you read and saves time later in the process.
You can use our free APA Reference Generator for quick, correct, consistent citations.
Prevent plagiarism, run a free check.
To begin organising your literature review’s argument and structure, you need to understand the connections and relationships between the sources you’ve read. Based on your reading and notes, you can look for:
Trends and patterns (in theory, method or results): do certain approaches become more or less popular over time?
Themes: what questions or concepts recur across the literature?
Debates, conflicts and contradictions: where do sources disagree?
Pivotal publications: are there any influential theories or studies that changed the direction of the field?
Gaps: what is missing from the literature? Are there weaknesses that need to be addressed?
This step will help you work out the structure of your literature review and (if applicable) show how your own research will contribute to existing knowledge.
Most research has focused on young women.
There is an increasing interest in the visual aspects of social media.
But there is still a lack of robust research on highly-visual platforms like Instagram and Snapchat – this is a gap that you could address in your own research.
There are various approaches to organising the body of a literature review. You should have a rough idea of your strategy before you start writing.
Depending on the length of your literature review, you can combine several of these strategies (for example, your overall structure might be thematic, but each theme is discussed chronologically).
Chronological
The simplest approach is to trace the development of the topic over time. However, if you choose this strategy, be careful to avoid simply listing and summarising sources in order.
Try to analyse patterns, turning points and key debates that have shaped the direction of the field. Give your interpretation of how and why certain developments occurred.
If you have found some recurring central themes, you can organise your literature review into subsections that address different aspects of the topic.
For example, if you are reviewing literature about inequalities in migrant health outcomes, key themes might include healthcare policy, language barriers, cultural attitudes, legal status, and economic access.
Methodological
If you draw your sources from different disciplines or fields that use a variety of research methods , you might want to compare the results and conclusions that emerge from different approaches. For example:
Look at what results have emerged in qualitative versus quantitative research
Discuss how the topic has been approached by empirical versus theoretical scholarship
Divide the literature into sociological, historical, and cultural sources
Theoretical
A literature review is often the foundation for a theoretical framework . You can use it to discuss various theories, models, and definitions of key concepts.
You might argue for the relevance of a specific theoretical approach, or combine various theoretical concepts to create a framework for your research.
Like any other academic text, your literature review should have an introduction , a main body, and a conclusion . What you include in each depends on the objective of your literature review.
The introduction should clearly establish the focus and purpose of the literature review.
If you are writing the literature review as part of your dissertation or thesis, reiterate your central problem or research question and give a brief summary of the scholarly context. You can emphasise the timeliness of the topic (“many recent studies have focused on the problem of x”) or highlight a gap in the literature (“while there has been much research on x, few researchers have taken y into consideration”).
Depending on the length of your literature review, you might want to divide the body into subsections. You can use a subheading for each theme, time period, or methodological approach.
As you write, make sure to follow these tips:
Summarise and synthesise: give an overview of the main points of each source and combine them into a coherent whole.
Analyse and interpret: don’t just paraphrase other researchers – add your own interpretations, discussing the significance of findings in relation to the literature as a whole.
Critically evaluate: mention the strengths and weaknesses of your sources.
Write in well-structured paragraphs: use transitions and topic sentences to draw connections, comparisons and contrasts.
In the conclusion, you should summarise the key findings you have taken from the literature and emphasise their significance.
If the literature review is part of your dissertation or thesis, reiterate how your research addresses gaps and contributes new knowledge, or discuss how you have drawn on existing theories and methods to build a framework for your research. This can lead directly into your methodology section.
A literature review is a survey of scholarly sources (such as books, journal articles, and theses) related to a specific topic or research question .
It is often written as part of a dissertation , thesis, research paper , or proposal .
There are several reasons to conduct a literature review at the beginning of a research project:
To familiarise yourself with the current state of knowledge on your topic
To ensure that you’re not just repeating what others have already done
To identify gaps in knowledge and unresolved problems that your research can address
To develop your theoretical framework and methodology
To provide an overview of the key findings and debates on the topic
Writing the literature review shows your reader how your work relates to existing research and what new insights it will contribute.
The literature review usually comes near the beginning of your dissertation . After the introduction , it grounds your research in a scholarly field and leads directly to your theoretical framework or methodology .
Cite this Scribbr article
If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the ‘Cite this Scribbr article’ button to automatically add the citation to our free Reference Generator.
McCombes, S. (2022, June 07). What is a Literature Review? | Guide, Template, & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved 9 September 2024, from https://www.scribbr.co.uk/thesis-dissertation/literature-review/
Is this article helpful?
Shona McCombes
Other students also liked, how to write a dissertation proposal | a step-by-step guide, what is a theoretical framework | a step-by-step guide, what is a research methodology | steps & tips.
How to Write a Literature Review
What is a literature review.
What Is the Literature
Writing the Review
A literature review is much more than an annotated bibliography or a list of separate reviews of articles and books. It is a critical, analytical summary and synthesis of the current knowledge of a topic. Thus it should compare and relate different theories, findings, etc, rather than just summarize them individually. In addition, it should have a particular focus or theme to organize the review. It does not have to be an exhaustive account of everything published on the topic, but it should discuss all the significant academic literature and other relevant sources important for that focus.
This is meant to be a general guide to writing a literature review: ways to structure one, what to include, how it supplements other research. For more specific help on writing a review, and especially for help on finding the literature to review, sign up for a Personal Research Session .
The specific organization of a literature review depends on the type and purpose of the review, as well as on the specific field or topic being reviewed. But in general, it is a relatively brief but thorough exploration of past and current work on a topic. Rather than a chronological listing of previous work, though, literature reviews are usually organized thematically, such as different theoretical approaches, methodologies, or specific issues or concepts involved in the topic. A thematic organization makes it much easier to examine contrasting perspectives, theoretical approaches, methodologies, findings, etc, and to analyze the strengths and weaknesses of, and point out any gaps in, previous research. And this is the heart of what a literature review is about. A literature review may offer new interpretations, theoretical approaches, or other ideas; if it is part of a research proposal or report it should demonstrate the relationship of the proposed or reported research to others' work; but whatever else it does, it must provide a critical overview of the current state of research efforts.
Literature reviews are common and very important in the sciences and social sciences. They are less common and have a less important role in the humanities, but they do have a place, especially stand-alone reviews.
Types of Literature Reviews
There are different types of literature reviews, and different purposes for writing a review, but the most common are:
Stand-alone literature review articles . These provide an overview and analysis of the current state of research on a topic or question. The goal is to evaluate and compare previous research on a topic to provide an analysis of what is currently known, and also to reveal controversies, weaknesses, and gaps in current work, thus pointing to directions for future research. You can find examples published in any number of academic journals, but there is a series of Annual Reviews of *Subject* which are specifically devoted to literature review articles. Writing a stand-alone review is often an effective way to get a good handle on a topic and to develop ideas for your own research program. For example, contrasting theoretical approaches or conflicting interpretations of findings can be the basis of your research project: can you find evidence supporting one interpretation against another, or can you propose an alternative interpretation that overcomes their limitations?
Part of a research proposal . This could be a proposal for a PhD dissertation, a senior thesis, or a class project. It could also be a submission for a grant. The literature review, by pointing out the current issues and questions concerning a topic, is a crucial part of demonstrating how your proposed research will contribute to the field, and thus of convincing your thesis committee to allow you to pursue the topic of your interest or a funding agency to pay for your research efforts.
Part of a research report . When you finish your research and write your thesis or paper to present your findings, it should include a literature review to provide the context to which your work is a contribution. Your report, in addition to detailing the methods, results, etc. of your research, should show how your work relates to others' work.
A literature review for a research report is often a revision of the review for a research proposal, which can be a revision of a stand-alone review. Each revision should be a fairly extensive revision. With the increased knowledge of and experience in the topic as you proceed, your understanding of the topic will increase. Thus, you will be in a better position to analyze and critique the literature. In addition, your focus will change as you proceed in your research. Some areas of the literature you initially reviewed will be marginal or irrelevant for your eventual research, and you will need to explore other areas more thoroughly.
Examples of Literature Reviews
See the series of Annual Reviews of *Subject* which are specifically devoted to literature review articles to find many examples of stand-alone literature reviews in the biomedical, physical, and social sciences.
Research report articles vary in how they are organized, but a common general structure is to have sections such as:
Abstract - Brief summary of the contents of the article
Introduction - A explanation of the purpose of the study, a statement of the research question(s) the study intends to address
Literature review - A critical assessment of the work done so far on this topic, to show how the current study relates to what has already been done
Methods - How the study was carried out (e.g. instruments or equipment, procedures, methods to gather and analyze data)
Results - What was found in the course of the study
Discussion - What do the results mean
Conclusion - State the conclusions and implications of the results, and discuss how it relates to the work reviewed in the literature review; also, point to directions for further work in the area
Here are some articles that illustrate variations on this theme. There is no need to read the entire articles (unless the contents interest you); just quickly browse through to see the sections, and see how each section is introduced and what is contained in them.
The Determinants of Undergraduate Grade Point Average: The Relative Importance of Family Background, High School Resources, and Peer Group Effects , in The Journal of Human Resources , v. 34 no. 2 (Spring 1999), p. 268-293.
This article has a standard breakdown of sections:
Introduction
Literature Review
Some discussion sections
First Encounters of the Bureaucratic Kind: Early Freshman Experiences with a Campus Bureaucracy , in The Journal of Higher Education , v. 67 no. 6 (Nov-Dec 1996), p. 660-691.
This one does not have a section specifically labeled as a "literature review" or "review of the literature," but the first few sections cite a long list of other sources discussing previous research in the area before the authors present their own study they are reporting.
Next: What Is the Literature >>
Last Updated: Jan 11, 2024 9:48 AM
URL: https://libguides.wesleyan.edu/litreview
Learn how to write a review of literature
What is a review of literature.
The format of a review of literature may vary from discipline to discipline and from assignment to assignment.
A review may be a self-contained unit — an end in itself — or a preface to and rationale for engaging in primary research. A review is a required part of grant and research proposals and often a chapter in theses and dissertations.
Generally, the purpose of a review is to analyze critically a segment of a published body of knowledge through summary, classification, and comparison of prior research studies, reviews of literature, and theoretical articles.
Writing the introduction
In the introduction, you should:
Define or identify the general topic, issue, or area of concern, thus providing an appropriate context for reviewing the literature.
Point out overall trends in what has been published about the topic; or conflicts in theory, methodology, evidence, and conclusions; or gaps in research and scholarship; or a single problem or new perspective of immediate interest.
Establish the writer’s reason (point of view) for reviewing the literature; explain the criteria to be used in analyzing and comparing literature and the organization of the review (sequence); and, when necessary, state why certain literature is or is not included (scope).
Writing the body
In the body, you should:
Group research studies and other types of literature (reviews, theoretical articles, case studies, etc.) according to common denominators such as qualitative versus quantitative approaches, conclusions of authors, specific purpose or objective, chronology, etc.
Summarize individual studies or articles with as much or as little detail as each merits according to its comparative importance in the literature, remembering that space (length) denotes significance.
Provide the reader with strong “umbrella” sentences at beginnings of paragraphs, “signposts” throughout, and brief “so what” summary sentences at intermediate points in the review to aid in understanding comparisons and analyses.
Writing the conclusion
In the conclusion, you should:
Summarize major contributions of significant studies and articles to the body of knowledge under review, maintaining the focus established in the introduction.
Evaluate the current “state of the art” for the body of knowledge reviewed, pointing out major methodological flaws or gaps in research, inconsistencies in theory and findings, and areas or issues pertinent to future study.
Conclude by providing some insight into the relationship between the central topic of the literature review and a larger area of study such as a discipline, a scientific endeavor, or a profession.
For further information see our handouts on Writing a Critical Review of a Nonfiction Book or Article or Reading a Book to Review It .
To learn more about literature reviews, take a look at our workshop on Writing Literature Reviews of Published Research.
Sample Literature Reviews
An important strategy for learning how to compose literature reviews in your field or within a specific genre is to locate and analyze representative examples. The following collection of annotated sample literature reviews written and co-written by colleagues associated with UW-Madison showcases how these reviews can do different kind of work for different purposes. Use these successful examples as a starting point for understanding how other writers have approached the challenging and important task of situating their idea in the context of established research.
Sample 1 (PDF) A brief literature review within a political scientists’ National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship grant
Sample 2 (PDF) A several-page literature review at the beginning of a published, academic article about philosophy
Sample 3 (PDF) A brief literature review at the beginning of a published, academic article about photochemistry
Academic and Professional Writing
This is an accordion element with a series of buttons that open and close related content panels.
Analysis Papers
Reading Poetry
A Short Guide to Close Reading for Literary Analysis
Using Literary Quotations
Play Reviews
Writing a Rhetorical Précis to Analyze Nonfiction Texts
Incorporating Interview Data
Grant Proposals
Planning and Writing a Grant Proposal: The Basics
Additional Resources for Grants and Proposal Writing
Job Materials and Application Essays
Writing Personal Statements for Ph.D. Programs
Before you begin: useful tips for writing your essay
Guided brainstorming exercises
Get more help with your essay
Frequently Asked Questions
Resume Writing Tips
CV Writing Tips
Cover Letters
Business Letters
Proposals and Dissertations
Resources for Proposal Writers
Resources for Dissertators
Research Papers
Planning and Writing Research Papers
Quoting and Paraphrasing
Writing Annotated Bibliographies
Creating Poster Presentations
Writing an Abstract for Your Research Paper
Thank-You Notes
Advice for Students Writing Thank-You Notes to Donors
Reading for a Review
Critical Reviews
Writing a Review of Literature
Scientific Reports
Scientific Report Format
Sample Lab Assignment
Writing for the Web
Writing an Effective Blog Post
Writing for Social Media: A Guide for Academics
What Is A Literature Review?
A plain-language explainer (with examples).
By: Derek Jansen (MBA) & Kerryn Warren (PhD) | June 2020 (Updated May 2023)
If you’re faced with writing a dissertation or thesis, chances are you’ve encountered the term “literature review” . If you’re on this page, you’re probably not 100% what the literature review is all about. The good news is that you’ve come to the right place.
Literature Review 101
What (exactly) is a literature review
What’s the purpose of the literature review chapter
How to find high-quality resources
How to structure your literature review chapter
Example of an actual literature review
What is a literature review?
The word “literature review” can refer to two related things that are part of the broader literature review process. The first is the task of reviewing the literature – i.e. sourcing and reading through the existing research relating to your research topic. The second is the actual chapter that you write up in your dissertation, thesis or research project. Let’s look at each of them:
Reviewing the literature
The first step of any literature review is to hunt down and read through the existing research that’s relevant to your research topic. To do this, you’ll use a combination of tools (we’ll discuss some of these later) to find journal articles, books, ebooks, research reports, dissertations, theses and any other credible sources of information that relate to your topic. You’ll then summarise and catalogue these for easy reference when you write up your literature review chapter.
The literature review chapter
The second step of the literature review is to write the actual literature review chapter (this is usually the second chapter in a typical dissertation or thesis structure ). At the simplest level, the literature review chapter is an overview of the key literature that’s relevant to your research topic. This chapter should provide a smooth-flowing discussion of what research has already been done, what is known, what is unknown and what is contested in relation to your research topic. So, you can think of it as an integrated review of the state of knowledge around your research topic.
What’s the purpose of a literature review?
The literature review chapter has a few important functions within your dissertation, thesis or research project. Let’s take a look at these:
Purpose #1 – Demonstrate your topic knowledge
The first function of the literature review chapter is, quite simply, to show the reader (or marker) that you know what you’re talking about . In other words, a good literature review chapter demonstrates that you’ve read the relevant existing research and understand what’s going on – who’s said what, what’s agreed upon, disagreed upon and so on. This needs to be more than just a summary of who said what – it needs to integrate the existing research to show how it all fits together and what’s missing (which leads us to purpose #2, next).
Purpose #2 – Reveal the research gap that you’ll fill
The second function of the literature review chapter is to show what’s currently missing from the existing research, to lay the foundation for your own research topic. In other words, your literature review chapter needs to show that there are currently “missing pieces” in terms of the bigger puzzle, and that your study will fill one of those research gaps . By doing this, you are showing that your research topic is original and will help contribute to the body of knowledge. In other words, the literature review helps justify your research topic.
Purpose #3 – Lay the foundation for your conceptual framework
The third function of the literature review is to form the basis for a conceptual framework . Not every research topic will necessarily have a conceptual framework, but if your topic does require one, it needs to be rooted in your literature review.
For example, let’s say your research aims to identify the drivers of a certain outcome – the factors which contribute to burnout in office workers. In this case, you’d likely develop a conceptual framework which details the potential factors (e.g. long hours, excessive stress, etc), as well as the outcome (burnout). Those factors would need to emerge from the literature review chapter – they can’t just come from your gut!
So, in this case, the literature review chapter would uncover each of the potential factors (based on previous studies about burnout), which would then be modelled into a framework.
Purpose #4 – To inform your methodology
The fourth function of the literature review is to inform the choice of methodology for your own research. As we’ve discussed on the Grad Coach blog , your choice of methodology will be heavily influenced by your research aims, objectives and questions . Given that you’ll be reviewing studies covering a topic close to yours, it makes sense that you could learn a lot from their (well-considered) methodologies.
So, when you’re reviewing the literature, you’ll need to pay close attention to the research design , methodology and methods used in similar studies, and use these to inform your methodology. Quite often, you’ll be able to “borrow” from previous studies . This is especially true for quantitative studies , as you can use previously tried and tested measures and scales.
How do I find articles for my literature review?
Finding quality journal articles is essential to crafting a rock-solid literature review. As you probably already know, not all research is created equally, and so you need to make sure that your literature review is built on credible research .
We could write an entire post on how to find quality literature (actually, we have ), but a good starting point is Google Scholar . Google Scholar is essentially the academic equivalent of Google, using Google’s powerful search capabilities to find relevant journal articles and reports. It certainly doesn’t cover every possible resource, but it’s a very useful way to get started on your literature review journey, as it will very quickly give you a good indication of what the most popular pieces of research are in your field.
One downside of Google Scholar is that it’s merely a search engine – that is, it lists the articles, but oftentimes it doesn’t host the articles . So you’ll often hit a paywall when clicking through to journal websites.
Thankfully, your university should provide you with access to their library, so you can find the article titles using Google Scholar and then search for them by name in your university’s online library. Your university may also provide you with access to ResearchGate , which is another great source for existing research.
Remember, the correct search keywords will be super important to get the right information from the start. So, pay close attention to the keywords used in the journal articles you read and use those keywords to search for more articles. If you can’t find a spoon in the kitchen, you haven’t looked in the right drawer.
Need a helping hand?
How should I structure my literature review?
Unfortunately, there’s no generic universal answer for this one. The structure of your literature review will depend largely on your topic area and your research aims and objectives.
You could potentially structure your literature review chapter according to theme, group, variables , chronologically or per concepts in your field of research. We explain the main approaches to structuring your literature review here . You can also download a copy of our free literature review template to help you establish an initial structure.
In general, it’s also a good idea to start wide (i.e. the big-picture-level) and then narrow down, ending your literature review close to your research questions . However, there’s no universal one “right way” to structure your literature review. The most important thing is not to discuss your sources one after the other like a list – as we touched on earlier, your literature review needs to synthesise the research , not summarise it .
Ultimately, you need to craft your literature review so that it conveys the most important information effectively – it needs to tell a logical story in a digestible way. It’s no use starting off with highly technical terms and then only explaining what these terms mean later. Always assume your reader is not a subject matter expert and hold their hand through a journe y of the literature while keeping the functions of the literature review chapter (which we discussed earlier) front of mind.
Example of a literature review
In the video below, we walk you through a high-quality literature review from a dissertation that earned full distinction. This will give you a clearer view of what a strong literature review looks like in practice and hopefully provide some inspiration for your own.
Wrapping Up
In this post, we’ve (hopefully) answered the question, “ what is a literature review? “. We’ve also considered the purpose and functions of the literature review, as well as how to find literature and how to structure the literature review chapter. If you’re keen to learn more, check out the literature review section of the Grad Coach blog , as well as our detailed video post covering how to write a literature review .
Psst… there’s more!
This post is an extract from our bestselling short course, Literature Review Bootcamp . If you want to work smart, you don't want to miss this .
16 Comments
Thanks for this review. It narrates what’s not been taught as tutors are always in a early to finish their classes.
Thanks for the kind words, Becky. Good luck with your literature review 🙂
This website is amazing, it really helps break everything down. Thank you, I would have been lost without it.
This is review is amazing. I benefited from it a lot and hope others visiting this website will benefit too.
Thank you very much for the guiding in literature review I learn and benefited a lot this make my journey smooth I’ll recommend this site to my friends
This was so useful. Thank you so much.
Hi, Concept was explained nicely by both of you. Thanks a lot for sharing it. It will surely help research scholars to start their Research Journey.
The review is really helpful to me especially during this period of covid-19 pandemic when most universities in my country only offer online classes. Great stuff
Great Brief Explanation, thanks
So helpful to me as a student
GradCoach is a fantastic site with brilliant and modern minds behind it.. I spent weeks decoding the substantial academic Jargon and grounding my initial steps on the research process, which could be shortened to a couple of days through the Gradcoach. Thanks again!
This is an amazing talk. I paved way for myself as a researcher. Thank you GradCoach!
Well-presented overview of the literature!
This was brilliant. So clear. Thank you
Submit a Comment Cancel reply
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.
Print Friendly
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
Clinics (Sao Paulo)
Approaching literature review for academic purposes: The Literature Review Checklist
Debora f.b. leite.
I Departamento de Ginecologia e Obstetricia, Faculdade de Ciencias Medicas, Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Campinas, SP, BR
II Universidade Federal de Pernambuco, Pernambuco, PE, BR
III Hospital das Clinicas, Universidade Federal de Pernambuco, Pernambuco, PE, BR
Maria Auxiliadora Soares Padilha
Jose g. cecatti.
A sophisticated literature review (LR) can result in a robust dissertation/thesis by scrutinizing the main problem examined by the academic study; anticipating research hypotheses, methods and results; and maintaining the interest of the audience in how the dissertation/thesis will provide solutions for the current gaps in a particular field. Unfortunately, little guidance is available on elaborating LRs, and writing an LR chapter is not a linear process. An LR translates students’ abilities in information literacy, the language domain, and critical writing. Students in postgraduate programs should be systematically trained in these skills. Therefore, this paper discusses the purposes of LRs in dissertations and theses. Second, the paper considers five steps for developing a review: defining the main topic, searching the literature, analyzing the results, writing the review and reflecting on the writing. Ultimately, this study proposes a twelve-item LR checklist. By clearly stating the desired achievements, this checklist allows Masters and Ph.D. students to continuously assess their own progress in elaborating an LR. Institutions aiming to strengthen students’ necessary skills in critical academic writing should also use this tool.
INTRODUCTION
Writing the literature review (LR) is often viewed as a difficult task that can be a point of writer’s block and procrastination ( 1 ) in postgraduate life. Disagreements on the definitions or classifications of LRs ( 2 ) may confuse students about their purpose and scope, as well as how to perform an LR. Interestingly, at many universities, the LR is still an important element in any academic work, despite the more recent trend of producing scientific articles rather than classical theses.
The LR is not an isolated section of the thesis/dissertation or a copy of the background section of a research proposal. It identifies the state-of-the-art knowledge in a particular field, clarifies information that is already known, elucidates implications of the problem being analyzed, links theory and practice ( 3 - 5 ), highlights gaps in the current literature, and places the dissertation/thesis within the research agenda of that field. Additionally, by writing the LR, postgraduate students will comprehend the structure of the subject and elaborate on their cognitive connections ( 3 ) while analyzing and synthesizing data with increasing maturity.
At the same time, the LR transforms the student and hints at the contents of other chapters for the reader. First, the LR explains the research question; second, it supports the hypothesis, objectives, and methods of the research project; and finally, it facilitates a description of the student’s interpretation of the results and his/her conclusions. For scholars, the LR is an introductory chapter ( 6 ). If it is well written, it demonstrates the student’s understanding of and maturity in a particular topic. A sound and sophisticated LR can indicate a robust dissertation/thesis.
A consensus on the best method to elaborate a dissertation/thesis has not been achieved. The LR can be a distinct chapter or included in different sections; it can be part of the introduction chapter, part of each research topic, or part of each published paper ( 7 ). However, scholars view the LR as an integral part of the main body of an academic work because it is intrinsically connected to other sections ( Figure 1 ) and is frequently present. The structure of the LR depends on the conventions of a particular discipline, the rules of the department, and the student’s and supervisor’s areas of expertise, needs and interests.
Interestingly, many postgraduate students choose to submit their LR to peer-reviewed journals. As LRs are critical evaluations of current knowledge, they are indeed publishable material, even in the form of narrative or systematic reviews. However, systematic reviews have specific patterns 1 ( 8 ) that may not entirely fit with the questions posed in the dissertation/thesis. Additionally, the scope of a systematic review may be too narrow, and the strict criteria for study inclusion may omit important information from the dissertation/thesis. Therefore, this essay discusses the definition of an LR is and methods to develop an LR in the context of an academic dissertation/thesis. Finally, we suggest a checklist to evaluate an LR.
WHAT IS A LITERATURE REVIEW IN A THESIS?
Conducting research and writing a dissertation/thesis translates rational thinking and enthusiasm ( 9 ). While a strong body of literature that instructs students on research methodology, data analysis and writing scientific papers exists, little guidance on performing LRs is available. The LR is a unique opportunity to assess and contrast various arguments and theories, not just summarize them. The research results should not be discussed within the LR, but the postgraduate student tends to write a comprehensive LR while reflecting on his or her own findings ( 10 ).
Many people believe that writing an LR is a lonely and linear process. Supervisors or the institutions assume that the Ph.D. student has mastered the relevant techniques and vocabulary associated with his/her subject and conducts a self-reflection about previously published findings. Indeed, while elaborating the LR, the student should aggregate diverse skills, which mainly rely on his/her own commitment to mastering them. Thus, less supervision should be required ( 11 ). However, the parameters described above might not currently be the case for many students ( 11 , 12 ), and the lack of formal and systematic training on writing LRs is an important concern ( 11 ).
An institutional environment devoted to active learning will provide students the opportunity to continuously reflect on LRs, which will form a dialogue between the postgraduate student and the current literature in a particular field ( 13 ). Postgraduate students will be interpreting studies by other researchers, and, according to Hart (1998) ( 3 ), the outcomes of the LR in a dissertation/thesis include the following:
To identify what research has been performed and what topics require further investigation in a particular field of knowledge;
To determine the context of the problem;
To recognize the main methodologies and techniques that have been used in the past;
To place the current research project within the historical, methodological and theoretical context of a particular field;
To identify significant aspects of the topic;
To elucidate the implications of the topic;
To offer an alternative perspective;
To discern how the studied subject is structured;
To improve the student’s subject vocabulary in a particular field; and
To characterize the links between theory and practice.
A sound LR translates the postgraduate student’s expertise in academic and scientific writing: it expresses his/her level of comfort with synthesizing ideas ( 11 ). The LR reveals how well the postgraduate student has proceeded in three domains: an effective literature search, the language domain, and critical writing.
Effective literature search
All students should be trained in gathering appropriate data for specific purposes, and information literacy skills are a cornerstone. These skills are defined as “an individual’s ability to know when they need information, to identify information that can help them address the issue or problem at hand, and to locate, evaluate, and use that information effectively” ( 14 ). Librarian support is of vital importance in coaching the appropriate use of Boolean logic (AND, OR, NOT) and other tools for highly efficient literature searches (e.g., quotation marks and truncation), as is the appropriate management of electronic databases.
Language domain
Academic writing must be concise and precise: unnecessary words distract the reader from the essential content ( 15 ). In this context, reading about issues distant from the research topic ( 16 ) may increase students’ general vocabulary and familiarity with grammar. Ultimately, reading diverse materials facilitates and encourages the writing process itself.
Critical writing
Critical judgment includes critical reading, thinking and writing. It supposes a student’s analytical reflection about what he/she has read. The student should delineate the basic elements of the topic, characterize the most relevant claims, identify relationships, and finally contrast those relationships ( 17 ). Each scientific document highlights the perspective of the author, and students will become more confident in judging the supporting evidence and underlying premises of a study and constructing their own counterargument as they read more articles. A paucity of integration or contradictory perspectives indicates lower levels of cognitive complexity ( 12 ).
Thus, while elaborating an LR, the postgraduate student should achieve the highest category of Bloom’s cognitive skills: evaluation ( 12 ). The writer should not only summarize data and understand each topic but also be able to make judgments based on objective criteria, compare resources and findings, identify discrepancies due to methodology, and construct his/her own argument ( 12 ). As a result, the student will be sufficiently confident to show his/her own voice .
Writing a consistent LR is an intense and complex activity that reveals the training and long-lasting academic skills of a writer. It is not a lonely or linear process. However, students are unlikely to be prepared to write an LR if they have not mastered the aforementioned domains ( 10 ). An institutional environment that supports student learning is crucial.
Different institutions employ distinct methods to promote students’ learning processes. First, many universities propose modules to develop behind the scenes activities that enhance self-reflection about general skills (e.g., the skills we have mastered and the skills we need to develop further), behaviors that should be incorporated (e.g., self-criticism about one’s own thoughts), and each student’s role in the advancement of his/her field. Lectures or workshops about LRs themselves are useful because they describe the purposes of the LR and how it fits into the whole picture of a student’s work. These activities may explain what type of discussion an LR must involve, the importance of defining the correct scope, the reasons to include a particular resource, and the main role of critical reading.
Some pedagogic services that promote a continuous improvement in study and academic skills are equally important. Examples include workshops about time management, the accomplishment of personal objectives, active learning, and foreign languages for nonnative speakers. Additionally, opportunities to converse with other students promotes an awareness of others’ experiences and difficulties. Ultimately, the supervisor’s role in providing feedback and setting deadlines is crucial in developing students’ abilities and in strengthening students’ writing quality ( 12 ).
HOW SHOULD A LITERATURE REVIEW BE DEVELOPED?
A consensus on the appropriate method for elaborating an LR is not available, but four main steps are generally accepted: defining the main topic, searching the literature, analyzing the results, and writing ( 6 ). We suggest a fifth step: reflecting on the information that has been written in previous publications ( Figure 2 ).
First step: Defining the main topic
Planning an LR is directly linked to the research main question of the thesis and occurs in parallel to students’ training in the three domains discussed above. The planning stage helps organize ideas, delimit the scope of the LR ( 11 ), and avoid the wasting of time in the process. Planning includes the following steps:
Reflecting on the scope of the LR: postgraduate students will have assumptions about what material must be addressed and what information is not essential to an LR ( 13 , 18 ). Cooper’s Taxonomy of Literature Reviews 2 systematizes the writing process through six characteristics and nonmutually exclusive categories. The focus refers to the reviewer’s most important points of interest, while the goals concern what students want to achieve with the LR. The perspective assumes answers to the student’s own view of the LR and how he/she presents a particular issue. The coverage defines how comprehensive the student is in presenting the literature, and the organization determines the sequence of arguments. The audience is defined as the group for whom the LR is written.
Designating sections and subsections: Headings and subheadings should be specific, explanatory and have a coherent sequence throughout the text ( 4 ). They simulate an inverted pyramid, with an increasing level of reflection and depth of argument.
Identifying keywords: The relevant keywords for each LR section should be listed to guide the literature search. This list should mirror what Hart (1998) ( 3 ) advocates as subject vocabulary . The keywords will also be useful when the student is writing the LR since they guide the reader through the text.
Delineating the time interval and language of documents to be retrieved in the second step. The most recently published documents should be considered, but relevant texts published before a predefined cutoff year can be included if they are classic documents in that field. Extra care should be employed when translating documents.
Second step: Searching the literature
The ability to gather adequate information from the literature must be addressed in postgraduate programs. Librarian support is important, particularly for accessing difficult texts. This step comprises the following components:
Searching the literature itself: This process consists of defining which databases (electronic or dissertation/thesis repositories), official documents, and books will be searched and then actively conducting the search. Information literacy skills have a central role in this stage. While searching electronic databases, controlled vocabulary (e.g., Medical Subject Headings, or MeSH, for the PubMed database) or specific standardized syntax rules may need to be applied.
In addition, two other approaches are suggested. First, a review of the reference list of each document might be useful for identifying relevant publications to be included and important opinions to be assessed. This step is also relevant for referencing the original studies and leading authors in that field. Moreover, students can directly contact the experts on a particular topic to consult with them regarding their experience or use them as a source of additional unpublished documents.
Before submitting a dissertation/thesis, the electronic search strategy should be repeated. This process will ensure that the most recently published papers will be considered in the LR.
Selecting documents for inclusion: Generally, the most recent literature will be included in the form of published peer-reviewed papers. Assess books and unpublished material, such as conference abstracts, academic texts and government reports, are also important to assess since the gray literature also offers valuable information. However, since these materials are not peer-reviewed, we recommend that they are carefully added to the LR.
This task is an important exercise in time management. First, students should read the title and abstract to understand whether that document suits their purposes, addresses the research question, and helps develop the topic of interest. Then, they should scan the full text, determine how it is structured, group it with similar documents, and verify whether other arguments might be considered ( 5 ).
Third step: Analyzing the results
Critical reading and thinking skills are important in this step. This step consists of the following components:
Reading documents: The student may read various texts in depth according to LR sections and subsections ( defining the main topic ), which is not a passive activity ( 1 ). Some questions should be asked to practice critical analysis skills, as listed below. Is the research question evident and articulated with previous knowledge? What are the authors’ research goals and theoretical orientations, and how do they interact? Are the authors’ claims related to other scholars’ research? Do the authors consider different perspectives? Was the research project designed and conducted properly? Are the results and discussion plausible, and are they consistent with the research objectives and methodology? What are the strengths and limitations of this work? How do the authors support their findings? How does this work contribute to the current research topic? ( 1 , 19 )
Taking notes: Students who systematically take notes on each document are more readily able to establish similarities or differences with other documents and to highlight personal observations. This approach reinforces the student’s ideas about the next step and helps develop his/her own academic voice ( 1 , 13 ). Voice recognition software ( 16 ), mind maps ( 5 ), flowcharts, tables, spreadsheets, personal comments on the referenced texts, and note-taking apps are all available tools for managing these observations, and the student him/herself should use the tool that best improves his/her learning. Additionally, when a student is considering submitting an LR to a peer-reviewed journal, notes should be taken on the activities performed in all five steps to ensure that they are able to be replicated.
Fourth step: Writing
The recognition of when a student is able and ready to write after a sufficient period of reading and thinking is likely a difficult task. Some students can produce a review in a single long work session. However, as discussed above, writing is not a linear process, and students do not need to write LRs according to a specific sequence of sections. Writing an LR is a time-consuming task, and some scholars believe that a period of at least six months is sufficient ( 6 ). An LR, and academic writing in general, expresses the writer’s proper thoughts, conclusions about others’ work ( 6 , 10 , 13 , 16 ), and decisions about methods to progress in the chosen field of knowledge. Thus, each student is expected to present a different learning and writing trajectory.
In this step, writing methods should be considered; then, editing, citing and correct referencing should complete this stage, at least temporarily. Freewriting techniques may be a good starting point for brainstorming ideas and improving the understanding of the information that has been read ( 1 ). Students should consider the following parameters when creating an agenda for writing the LR: two-hour writing blocks (at minimum), with prespecified tasks that are possible to complete in one section; short (minutes) and long breaks (days or weeks) to allow sufficient time for mental rest and reflection; and short- and long-term goals to motivate the writing itself ( 20 ). With increasing experience, this scheme can vary widely, and it is not a straightforward rule. Importantly, each discipline has a different way of writing ( 1 ), and each department has its own preferred styles for citations and references.
Fifth step: Reflecting on the writing
In this step, the postgraduate student should ask him/herself the same questions as in the analyzing the results step, which can take more time than anticipated. Ambiguities, repeated ideas, and a lack of coherence may not be noted when the student is immersed in the writing task for long periods. The whole effort will likely be a work in progress, and continuous refinements in the written material will occur once the writing process has begun.
LITERATURE REVIEW CHECKLIST
In contrast to review papers, the LR of a dissertation/thesis should not be a standalone piece or work. Instead, it should present the student as a scholar and should maintain the interest of the audience in how that dissertation/thesis will provide solutions for the current gaps in a particular field.
A checklist for evaluating an LR is convenient for students’ continuous academic development and research transparency: it clearly states the desired achievements for the LR of a dissertation/thesis. Here, we present an LR checklist developed from an LR scoring rubric ( 11 ). For a critical analysis of an LR, we maintain the five categories but offer twelve criteria that are not scaled ( Figure 3 ). The criteria all have the same importance and are not mutually exclusive.
First category: Coverage
1. justified criteria exist for the inclusion and exclusion of literature in the review.
This criterion builds on the main topic and areas covered by the LR ( 18 ). While experts may be confident in retrieving and selecting literature, postgraduate students must convince their audience about the adequacy of their search strategy and their reasons for intentionally selecting what material to cover ( 11 ). References from different fields of knowledge provide distinct perspective, but narrowing the scope of coverage may be important in areas with a large body of existing knowledge.
Second category: Synthesis
2. a critical examination of the state of the field exists.
A critical examination is an assessment of distinct aspects in the field ( 1 ) along with a constructive argument. It is not a negative critique but an expression of the student’s understanding of how other scholars have added to the topic ( 1 ), and the student should analyze and contextualize contradictory statements. A writer’s personal bias (beliefs or political involvement) have been shown to influence the structure and writing of a document; therefore, the cultural and paradigmatic background guide how the theories are revised and presented ( 13 ). However, an honest judgment is important when considering different perspectives.
3. The topic or problem is clearly placed in the context of the broader scholarly literature
The broader scholarly literature should be related to the chosen main topic for the LR ( how to develop the literature review section). The LR can cover the literature from one or more disciplines, depending on its scope, but it should always offer a new perspective. In addition, students should be careful in citing and referencing previous publications. As a rule, original studies and primary references should generally be included. Systematic and narrative reviews present summarized data, and it may be important to cite them, particularly for issues that should be understood but do not require a detailed description. Similarly, quotations highlight the exact statement from another publication. However, excessive referencing may disclose lower levels of analysis and synthesis by the student.
4. The LR is critically placed in the historical context of the field
Situating the LR in its historical context shows the level of comfort of the student in addressing a particular topic. Instead of only presenting statements and theories in a temporal approach, which occasionally follows a linear timeline, the LR should authentically characterize the student’s academic work in the state-of-art techniques in their particular field of knowledge. Thus, the LR should reinforce why the dissertation/thesis represents original work in the chosen research field.
5. Ambiguities in definitions are considered and resolved
Distinct theories on the same topic may exist in different disciplines, and one discipline may consider multiple concepts to explain one topic. These misunderstandings should be addressed and contemplated. The LR should not synthesize all theories or concepts at the same time. Although this approach might demonstrate in-depth reading on a particular topic, it can reveal a student’s inability to comprehend and synthesize his/her research problem.
6. Important variables and phenomena relevant to the topic are articulated
The LR is a unique opportunity to articulate ideas and arguments and to purpose new relationships between them ( 10 , 11 ). More importantly, a sound LR will outline to the audience how these important variables and phenomena will be addressed in the current academic work. Indeed, the LR should build a bidirectional link with the remaining sections and ground the connections between all of the sections ( Figure 1 ).
7. A synthesized new perspective on the literature has been established
The LR is a ‘creative inquiry’ ( 13 ) in which the student elaborates his/her own discourse, builds on previous knowledge in the field, and describes his/her own perspective while interpreting others’ work ( 13 , 17 ). Thus, students should articulate the current knowledge, not accept the results at face value ( 11 , 13 , 17 ), and improve their own cognitive abilities ( 12 ).
Third category: Methodology
8. the main methodologies and research techniques that have been used in the field are identified and their advantages and disadvantages are discussed.
The LR is expected to distinguish the research that has been completed from investigations that remain to be performed, address the benefits and limitations of the main methods applied to date, and consider the strategies for addressing the expected limitations described above. While placing his/her research within the methodological context of a particular topic, the LR will justify the methodology of the study and substantiate the student’s interpretations.
9. Ideas and theories in the field are related to research methodologies
The audience expects the writer to analyze and synthesize methodological approaches in the field. The findings should be explained according to the strengths and limitations of previous research methods, and students must avoid interpretations that are not supported by the analyzed literature. This criterion translates to the student’s comprehension of the applicability and types of answers provided by different research methodologies, even those using a quantitative or qualitative research approach.
Fourth category: Significance
10. the scholarly significance of the research problem is rationalized.
The LR is an introductory section of a dissertation/thesis and will present the postgraduate student as a scholar in a particular field ( 11 ). Therefore, the LR should discuss how the research problem is currently addressed in the discipline being investigated or in different disciplines, depending on the scope of the LR. The LR explains the academic paradigms in the topic of interest ( 13 ) and methods to advance the field from these starting points. However, an excess number of personal citations—whether referencing the student’s research or studies by his/her research team—may reflect a narrow literature search and a lack of comprehensive synthesis of ideas and arguments.
11. The practical significance of the research problem is rationalized
The practical significance indicates a student’s comprehensive understanding of research terminology (e.g., risk versus associated factor), methodology (e.g., efficacy versus effectiveness) and plausible interpretations in the context of the field. Notably, the academic argument about a topic may not always reflect the debate in real life terms. For example, using a quantitative approach in epidemiology, statistically significant differences between groups do not explain all of the factors involved in a particular problem ( 21 ). Therefore, excessive faith in p -values may reflect lower levels of critical evaluation of the context and implications of a research problem by the student.
Fifth category: Rhetoric
12. the lr was written with a coherent, clear structure that supported the review.
This category strictly relates to the language domain: the text should be coherent and presented in a logical sequence, regardless of which organizational ( 18 ) approach is chosen. The beginning of each section/subsection should state what themes will be addressed, paragraphs should be carefully linked to each other ( 10 ), and the first sentence of each paragraph should generally summarize the content. Additionally, the student’s statements are clear, sound, and linked to other scholars’ works, and precise and concise language that follows standardized writing conventions (e.g., in terms of active/passive voice and verb tenses) is used. Attention to grammar, such as orthography and punctuation, indicates prudence and supports a robust dissertation/thesis. Ultimately, all of these strategies provide fluency and consistency for the text.
Although the scoring rubric was initially proposed for postgraduate programs in education research, we are convinced that this checklist is a valuable tool for all academic areas. It enables the monitoring of students’ learning curves and a concentrated effort on any criteria that are not yet achieved. For institutions, the checklist is a guide to support supervisors’ feedback, improve students’ writing skills, and highlight the learning goals of each program. These criteria do not form a linear sequence, but ideally, all twelve achievements should be perceived in the LR.
CONCLUSIONS
A single correct method to classify, evaluate and guide the elaboration of an LR has not been established. In this essay, we have suggested directions for planning, structuring and critically evaluating an LR. The planning of the scope of an LR and approaches to complete it is a valuable effort, and the five steps represent a rational starting point. An institutional environment devoted to active learning will support students in continuously reflecting on LRs, which will form a dialogue between the writer and the current literature in a particular field ( 13 ).
The completion of an LR is a challenging and necessary process for understanding one’s own field of expertise. Knowledge is always transitory, but our responsibility as scholars is to provide a critical contribution to our field, allowing others to think through our work. Good researchers are grounded in sophisticated LRs, which reveal a writer’s training and long-lasting academic skills. We recommend using the LR checklist as a tool for strengthening the skills necessary for critical academic writing.
AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
Leite DFB has initially conceived the idea and has written the first draft of this review. Padilha MAS and Cecatti JG have supervised data interpretation and critically reviewed the manuscript. All authors have read the draft and agreed with this submission. Authors are responsible for all aspects of this academic piece.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We are grateful to all of the professors of the ‘Getting Started with Graduate Research and Generic Skills’ module at University College Cork, Cork, Ireland, for suggesting and supporting this article. Funding: DFBL has granted scholarship from Brazilian Federal Agency for Support and Evaluation of Graduate Education (CAPES) to take part of her Ph.D. studies in Ireland (process number 88881.134512/2016-01). There is no participation from sponsors on authors’ decision to write or to submit this manuscript.
No potential conflict of interest was reported.
1 The questions posed in systematic reviews usually follow the ‘PICOS’ acronym: Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcomes, Study design.
2 In 1988, Cooper proposed a taxonomy that aims to facilitate students’ and institutions’ understanding of literature reviews. Six characteristics with specific categories are briefly described: Focus: research outcomes, research methodologies, theories, or practices and applications; Goals: integration (generalization, conflict resolution, and linguistic bridge-building), criticism, or identification of central issues; Perspective: neutral representation or espousal of a position; Coverage: exhaustive, exhaustive with selective citations, representative, central or pivotal; Organization: historical, conceptual, or methodological; and Audience: specialized scholars, general scholars, practitioners or policymakers, or the general public.
Harvey Cushing/John Hay Whitney Medical Library
Collections
Research Help
YSN Doctoral Programs: Steps in Conducting a Literature Review
Biomedical Databases
Global (Public Health) Databases
Soc. Sci., History, and Law Databases
Grey Literature
Trials Registers
Data and Statistics
Public Policy
Google Tips
Recommended Books
Steps in Conducting a Literature Review
What is a literature review?
A literature review is an integrated analysis -- not just a summary-- of scholarly writings and other relevant evidence related directly to your research question. That is, it represents a synthesis of the evidence that provides background information on your topic and shows a association between the evidence and your research question.
A literature review may be a stand alone work or the introduction to a larger research paper, depending on the assignment. Rely heavily on the guidelines your instructor has given you.
Why is it important?
A literature review is important because it:
Explains the background of research on a topic.
Demonstrates why a topic is significant to a subject area.
Discovers relationships between research studies/ideas.
Identifies major themes, concepts, and researchers on a topic.
Identifies critical gaps and points of disagreement.
Discusses further research questions that logically come out of the previous studies.
APA7 Style resources
APA Style Blog - for those harder to find answers
1. Choose a topic. Define your research question.
Your literature review should be guided by your central research question. The literature represents background and research developments related to a specific research question, interpreted and analyzed by you in a synthesized way.
Make sure your research question is not too broad or too narrow. Is it manageable?
Begin writing down terms that are related to your question. These will be useful for searches later.
If you have the opportunity, discuss your topic with your professor and your class mates.
2. Decide on the scope of your review
How many studies do you need to look at? How comprehensive should it be? How many years should it cover?
This may depend on your assignment. How many sources does the assignment require?
3. Select the databases you will use to conduct your searches.
Make a list of the databases you will search.
Where to find databases:
use the tabs on this guide
Find other databases in the Nursing Information Resources web page
More on the Medical Library web page
... and more on the Yale University Library web page
4. Conduct your searches to find the evidence. Keep track of your searches.
Use the key words in your question, as well as synonyms for those words, as terms in your search. Use the database tutorials for help.
Save the searches in the databases. This saves time when you want to redo, or modify, the searches. It is also helpful to use as a guide is the searches are not finding any useful results.
Review the abstracts of research studies carefully. This will save you time.
Use the bibliographies and references of research studies you find to locate others.
Check with your professor, or a subject expert in the field, if you are missing any key works in the field.
Ask your librarian for help at any time.
Use a citation manager, such as EndNote as the repository for your citations. See the EndNote tutorials for help.
Review the literature
Some questions to help you analyze the research:
What was the research question of the study you are reviewing? What were the authors trying to discover?
Was the research funded by a source that could influence the findings?
What were the research methodologies? Analyze its literature review, the samples and variables used, the results, and the conclusions.
Does the research seem to be complete? Could it have been conducted more soundly? What further questions does it raise?
If there are conflicting studies, why do you think that is?
How are the authors viewed in the field? Has this study been cited? If so, how has it been analyzed?
Tips:
Review the abstracts carefully.
Keep careful notes so that you may track your thought processes during the research process.
Create a matrix of the studies for easy analysis, and synthesis, across all of the studies.
<< Previous: Recommended Books
Last Updated: Jun 20, 2024 9:08 AM
URL: https://guides.library.yale.edu/YSNDoctoral
Literature Reviews
What is a Literature Review?
Concept Mapping
Writing a Proposal
For Faculty
Need help? Ask a librarian
Tools for All Writers
Reading, Writing, Speaking
Citing Sources
Library Searching
Templates for Proposal Writing
Template 1 from Drew University
Template 2 from Rutgers University (Saracevic)
Content of a proposal for a thesis or any research project
Full Pdf from Rutgers University
What do you call this investigation?
What problem or area will you investigate in general?
Why is this problem important to investigate?
What was previously done in relation to this problem? What were some of the significant studies? (Literature review)
What theory or model is going to guide your research?
What will you specifically investigate or do in the framework of that problem? What are your specific research questions or hypotheses?
How will each research question be addressed ? What methods will you use for each research question?
How will the results be analyzed?
What are the deliverables? What can or will be gained by investigation of this problem?
Literature Review in Research Proposal: A Comprehensive Guide
Introduction: What is a Literature Review and Why is it Important?
The introduction is an essential part of any literature review in a research proposal. It provides a foundation for the entire review and gives context to the importance of conducting a literature review in the first place. In this section, you will need to provide a brief definition of what a literature review is and why it is an essential component of a research proposal.
A literature review is a critical evaluation and summary of published research studies and other sources relevant to a particular research topic. The purpose of a literature review is to identify and evaluate the existing knowledge on a topic, as well as to identify any gaps in the knowledge base that the proposed research aims to fill.
In a research proposal, the introduction section must explain the importance of the literature review to the overall project. It is an opportunity to convince the reader of the significance of the research problem and to show how the literature review will contribute to knowledge building. This section should also provide a clear and concise statement of the research problem and the research question(s).
Overall, the introduction section sets the stage for the literature review and the research proposal as a whole. It provides a context for the research problem, highlights the knowledge gaps that the proposed research aims to fill, and justifies the importance of the literature review in achieving the research objectives. By providing a clear and compelling introduction, researchers can ensure that their proposal has a strong foundation for success.
In This Article:
Defining the Research Problem
Developing a research question, conducting a literature search, analyzing and synthesizing literature, evaluating the quality of literature, identifying themes and patterns, previous articles:.
How to Change Document to PDF: A Step-by-Step Guide
PowerPoint Remove Background Feature:Say Goodbye to Cluttered Presentations
How to make manuscript: tips and tricks for writers.
Scientific Article Journal: How to Find The Right One For Your Manuscript
Referencing Bib 101: The Basics
Subheading 2, “Defining the Research Problem: Using Literature Review to Identify Gaps in Knowledge,” is an important subheading in the literature review section of a research proposal. A literature review is an essential part of any research project as it provides a comprehensive overview of the existing body of knowledge on a specific research topic.
To define the research problem, it is crucial to identify what is already known and what is not known about the research topic. This is where a literature review comes in handy. This process of identifying gaps in knowledge allows the researcher to identify the specific research problem and develop research questions and objectives that can address those gaps.
In summary, subheading 2 is critical in the literature review section of a research proposal as it highlights the importance of using a literature review to identify gaps in knowledge and define the research problem.
The subheading “Developing a Research Question: Using Literature Review to Inform Research Questions and Objectives” highlights the crucial role of literature review in guiding the development of research questions and objectives. A well-formulated research question provides a clear focus for the study, ensuring that the research stays on track and avoids any unnecessary or irrelevant work. In addition, by conducting a thorough literature review, researchers can identify the current state of knowledge on the topic, recognize any gaps or inconsistencies in the literature, and identify potential areas of further exploration.
To develop a research question, it is important to first consider the research problem and the purpose of the study. Once the problem has been defined, the literature review can help to identify relevant theoretical and empirical frameworks that can inform the development of research questions. The literature review can also help to refine and narrow the research question, ensuring that it is feasible, relevant, and important.
The fourth subheading, “Conducting a Literature Search: Tips and Strategies for Finding Relevant Studies and Sources,” is an essential aspect of writing a comprehensive literature review for a research proposal. The literature search is a critical step in identifying relevant studies and sources that will help answer the research question and objectives.
When conducting a literature search, it is crucial to develop a systematic approach that will guide the process.
In addition, it is important to document the search process by keeping a record of the keywords used, the sources searched, and the search results. This documentation will enable researchers to retrace their steps if necessary and ensure that they are transparent in their research methods.
Another important consideration when conducting a literature search is the quality of the sources used. Researchers should be mindful of the credibility of the sources and ensure that they are peer-reviewed, reputable, and relevant to the research question. Using sources that are not reliable or relevant can weaken the literature review and the overall research proposal.
Subheading 5, “Analyzing and Synthesizing Literature: Methods for Summarizing and Integrating Findings,” is a critical component of any literature review in a research proposal. This subheading refers to the process of reviewing and synthesizing existing research to gain an understanding of the current state of knowledge on the research topic.
In the analysis and synthesis phase, the researcher begins by reviewing the literature collected in the search phase. This process involves reading through each article or source, summarizing the main findings, and noting the key points that contribute to the understanding of the research problem. The researcher may use a variety of methods to organize the information, such as tables, charts, or diagrams.
Once the researcher has completed the summary of each study, the synthesis phase begins. This is the process of integrating the findings from the individual studies into a cohesive whole. The researcher must identify commonalities and differences between the studies and identify themes and patterns that emerge across the literature.
Subheading 6, “Evaluating the Quality of Literature: Criteria for Assessing the Validity and Reliability of Studies,” is a crucial element of any literature review in a research proposal. Evaluating the quality of literature is an essential step in ensuring that the information gathered from various sources is trustworthy and accurate.
To evaluate the quality of literature, researchers must use established criteria that are specific to the research topic and questions. For example, when conducting research in the social sciences, the criteria may include the validity of the research design, the reliability of the data collection methods, and the transparency of the analysis. In contrast, when researching in the natural sciences, the criteria may include the accuracy of the measurements, the statistical analysis, and the experimental design.
One way to evaluate the quality of literature is to use a systematic review approach. Systematic reviews involve a thorough and structured process of searching, evaluating, and synthesizing existing research to answer specific research questions. This approach ensures that the quality of the literature is assessed in a rigorous and transparent way, which increases the confidence in the findings of the literature review.
Subheading 7, “Identifying Themes and Patterns: Techniques for Identifying Common Themes and Patterns Across Studies,” is an important aspect of conducting a literature review in a research proposal. After conducting a thorough literature search and analyzing and synthesizing the findings, researchers need to identify the common themes and patterns that emerge across different studies. Furthermore, this process is essential because it helps to build a solid foundation for the proposed research by identifying existing knowledge gaps and areas where further research is needed.
One technique for identifying themes and patterns is to use a thematic analysis approach. Thematic analysis involves reading through the literature and highlighting or coding relevant data that relates to the research question or objective. Once all of the data has been coded, researchers can then categorize the codes into themes, which can be used to summarize the key findings of the literature review.
Another technique for identifying themes and patterns is to use a meta-synthesis approach. Meta-synthesis involves synthesizing the findings of multiple studies and identifying common themes and patterns that emerge.
In conclusion, a literature review is an essential component of any research proposal, and its importance cannot be overstated. The literature review helps to identify existing knowledge gaps, inform research questions and objectives, and build a solid foundation for the proposed research. In addition, by conducting a thorough literature search, analyzing and synthesizing the findings, and identifying common themes and patterns, researchers can ensure that their literature review is comprehensive and relevant to their research objectives.
Similar Posts
The Ultimate Resource for Finding a High-Quality Freelance Job Board
Introduction to Freelance Job Boards Freelancing has become a popular career choice for many individuals looking for flexibility and independence in their work. With the rise of remote work and digital platforms, finding freelance jobs has never been easier. One of the best resources for freelancers is a freelance job board. A freelance job board…
Maximizing the Benefits of Applicant Tracking Systems in the UK
Introduction to Applicant Tracking Systems Applicant Tracking Systems in The Uk (ATS) are software solutions that help organizations manage the recruitment process. The primary goal of these systems is to streamline the hiring process by automating many of the manual tasks involved in recruiting. ATSs are designed to make the process of attracting, screening, and…
Understanding the Different Types of Manuscripts The first subheading “Understanding the Different Types of Manuscripts” is an essential aspect of crafting a manuscript. Aspiring writers need to know the different types of manuscripts to identify which type they want to write and to understand the standard conventions for each type. There are several types of…
Why Removing Backgrounds Can Improve Your Presentations Presentations are a powerful tool for conveying information and ideas in a visually engaging way. However, cluttered and distracting images can detract from the impact of a presentation, making it harder for the audience to focus on the message being conveyed. This is where the Remove Background feature…
Streamline Your Storytelling: The Power of a Storyboard Word Template
Introduction to Storyboarding and its Importance Storyboarding is a critical step in the filmmaking and animation process that involves creating a visual representation of a story’s narrative structure. It helps filmmakers and animators plan the shots, transitions, and overall flow of a production before filming or animating. A well-crafted storyboard in Microsoft Word serves as…
The Ultimate Guide to Job Interview Common Questions and Answers
Introduction to Common Job Interview Questions Job interviews can be a nerve-wracking experience, especially if you’re unsure what to expect. However, with a little preparation and knowledge, you can feel confident and ready to tackle any question thrown your way. In this guide, we’ll explore some of the most common job interview questions and provide…
Privacy Overview
Cookie
Duration
Description
cookielawinfo-checkbox-analytics
11 months
This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Analytics".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-functional
11 months
The cookie is set by GDPR cookie consent to record the user consent for the cookies in the category "Functional".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-necessary
11 months
This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookies is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Necessary".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-others
11 months
This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Other.
cookielawinfo-checkbox-performance
11 months
This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Performance".
viewed_cookie_policy
11 months
The cookie is set by the GDPR Cookie Consent plugin and is used to store whether or not user has consented to the use of cookies. It does not store any personal data.
University of Pittsburgh Library System
Collections
Course & Subject Guides
Writing a research proposal @ pitt: literature review.
Getting Started
Literature Review
Search Tips
Funding Sources
Special Considerations
Writing & Citing
For researching your proposal your best resources will be the research article databases focused on your subject area. Find a specific database by its title or look at a list of databases for a particular subject area.
Librarian Subject Specialists If you have questions about using these databases or PittCat, or you would like to discuss your literature research, you may want to consult with the subject specialist for your area or a librarian at your regional campus.
Search Engines
Search engines search broadly across the web. Remember that links to full text will only work if the article is freely available or if the ULS subscribes to the article and you are searching through the Pitt network or have been authenticated through Pitt Passport.
Google Scholar Google Scholar does a broad search across all subject areas. It retrieves more scholarly results than Google, but can't search everything that has been published. Use the Advanced Search feature to tailor your search.
Why do a literature review?
A thorough review of the relevant literature is an important part of your preparation for writing a proposal. It plays several critical roles.
Don't reinvent the wheel. You won't get credit for proposing work that has already been reported.
Develop the context of your research. Show how your work grows from or relates to work that has already been done.
Establish the significance of your research. Show how your work will fill a gap or push forward research in a new direction.
Refine your idea and approach. Gain new ideas or clarify your thinking about what you need to do or how best to do it.
Identify the literature you will cite. You must cite the key sources used in developing your proposal.
The links on this page can help you find resources for doing your literature search.
PittCat Access PittCat directly or use the ULS homepage.
Searching PittCat
Signing into PittCat gives you access to the most results. The sign in option is in the upper right hand corner of your screen.
To begin a search, enter a term in the “search anything” box. You can select Books, Articles, and More to search for items across the entire library system including journal articles, images, ebooks, and more. Use the Library Catalog option to search for items available both electronically and physically in our libraries such as books, videos, music scores and more. The Course Reserves option will help you find materials put on reserve by instructors for a specific course.
The Results Screen shows you a list of items with basic information--click on a title to get a more detailed overview of the item you’ve selected. This detailed view gives you much more information about the item. You can see where the item is located and ways to email or print the record as well as how to cite. You may also see an abstract for the item or a table of contents if available.
You can Refine Your Results by using the menu on the left. For instance, if you want a physical copy of a book, you can choose "Held by library" under Show Only. If you want a digital or e-book copy, choose "Available online."
If Full-Text Content is available, you can get the full-text by clicking on the item title or the "available online" link underneath the description.
You can add Boolean Operators (AND, OR, NOT) into the Simple Search (the default search box) by adding them in all caps.
<< Previous: "How To"
Next: Search Tips >>
Last Updated: Jul 10, 2024 9:49 AM
URL: https://pitt.libguides.com/researchproposals
How to Prepare a Research Proposal and Literature Review
All HDR candidates are required to prepare a research proposal and literature review for their first Research Progress Review. If you are a PhD candidate, this will be your Confirmation Review.
Your research proposal and literature review should be a comprehensive outline of your research topic and show how you will make an original contribution to knowledge in your field. Your Review panel will use your research proposal and literature review to assess the viability of your research project, and to provide you with valuable feedback on your topic, methodology, research design, timeline and milestones.
UNSW Academic Skills provides a detailed description of how to develop and structure your research proposal.
Your Faculty and/or School may have particular requirements, and you should contact your Postgraduate Coordinator or your supervisor if you’re unsure of what is required.
Additional Resources
All disciplinary areas A guide for writing thesis proposals - UNSW Academic Skills Confirmation – not as big a deal as you think it is? - the Thesis Whisperer
Humanities and Social Sciences Essential ingredients of a good research proposal for undergraduate and postgraduate students in the social sciences – Raymond Talinbe Abdulai and Anthony Owusu-Ansah, SAGE Open, Jul-Sep 2014 Template for writing your PhD Confirmation document in Sociology and Anthropology - S A Hamed Hosseini
Science, Technology, Engineering and Medicine How to prepare a research proposal – Asya Al-Riyami, Oman Medical Journal Writing a scientific research proposal – author unknown
Find a degree
Ask a Question
Getting Started
International
Find a Researcher/Area
Apply for a Higher Degree Research Program
UNSW Sydney NSW 2052 Australia
Telephone +61 2 9385 5500
Maps
Graduate Research School, Level 2, Rupert Myers Building (South Wing), UNSW Sydney NSW 2052 Australia Telephone +61 2 93855500 Dean of Graduate Research, Professor Jonathan Morris. UNSW CRICOS Provider Code: 00098G TEQSA Provider ID : PRV12055 ABN: 57 195 873 179
301 Academic Skills Centre
Study skills online
How to write a research proposal
Advice and guidance on writing a proposal for a student research project.
Purpose of a Research Proposal
A research proposal should describe what you will investigate, why it is important to the discipline and how you will conduct your research.
Simply put, it is your plan for the research you intend to conduct. All research proposals are designed to persuade someone about how and why your intended project is worthwhile.
In your proposal you will need to explain and defend your choices. Always think about the exact reasons why you are making specific choices and why they are the best options available to you and your project.
Your research proposal aims should be centred on:
Relevance - You want to convince the reader how and why your research is relevant and significant to your field and how it is original. This is typically done in parts of the introduction and the literature review.
Context - You should demonstrate that you are familiar with the field, you understand the current state of research on the topic and your ideas have a strong academic basis (i.e., not simply based on your instincts or personal views). This will be the focus of your introduction and literature review.
Approach - You need to make a case for your methodology, showing that you have carefully thought about the data, tools and procedures you will need to conduct the research. You need to explicitly defend all of your choices. This will be presented in the research design section.
Feasibility - You need to demonstrate clearly that your project is both reasonable and feasible within the practical constraints of the course, timescales, institution or funding. You need to make sure you have the time and access to resources to complete the project in a reasonable period.
301 Recommends:
Our Research Writing workshop will look at some of the main writing challenges associated with writing a large-scale research project and look at strategies to manage your writing on a day-to-day basis. It will identify ways to plan, organise and map out the structure of your writing to allow you to develop an effective writing schedule and make continuous progress on your dissertation project.
Proposal format
The format of a research proposal varies between fields and levels of study but most proposals should contain at least these elements: introduction, literature review, research design and reference list.
Generally, research proposals can range from 500-1500 words or one to a few pages long. Typically, proposals for larger projects such as a PhD dissertation or funding requests, are longer and much more detailed.
Remember, the goal of your research proposal is to outline clearly and concisely exactly what your research will entail and accomplish, how it will do so and why it is important. If you are writing to a strictly enforced word count, a research proposal can be a great test of your ability to express yourself concisely!
Introduction
The first part of your proposal is the initial pitch for your project, so make sure it succinctly explains what you want to do and why. In other words, this is where you answer the reader’s “so what?” It should typically include: introducing the topic , outlining your problem statement and research question(s) and giving background and context. Some important questions to shape your introduction include:
Who has an interest in the topic (e.g. scientists, practitioners, policymakers, particular members of society)?
How much is already known about the problem and why is it important?
What is missing from current knowledge and why?
What new insights will your research contribute?
Why is this research worth doing?
If your proposal is very long, you might include separate sections with more detailed information on the background and context, problem statement, aims and objectives, and importance of the research.
Literature Review
It’s important to show that you’re familiar with the most important research on your topic. A strong literature review convinces the reader that your project has a solid foundation in existing knowledge or theory (i.e. how it relates to established research in the field).
Your literature review will also show that you’re not simply repeating what other people have already done or said. This is also where you explain why your research is necessary. You might want to consider some of the following prompts:
Comparing and contrasting: what are the main theories, methods, debates and controversies?
Being critical: what are the strengths and weaknesses of different approaches?
Showing how your research fits in: how will you build on, challenge or synthesise the work of others?
Filling a gap in the existing body of research: why is your idea innovative?
Research design and methods
Following the literature review, it is a good idea to restate your main objectives, bringing the focus back to your own project. The research design/ methodology section should describe the overall approach and practical steps you will take to answer your research questions. You also need to demonstrate the feasibility of the project keeping in mind time and other constraints.
You should definitely include:
Qualitative vs quantitative research? Combination?
Will you collect original data or work with primary/secondary sources?
Is your research design descriptive, correlational or experimental? Something completely different?
If you are undertaking your own study, when and where will you collect the data? How will you select subjects or sources? Ethics review? Exactly what or who will you study?
What tools and procedures will you use (e.g. systematic reviews, surveys, interviews, observation, experiments, bibliographic data) to collect your data?
What tools/methods will you use to analyse your data?
Why are these the best methods to answer your research question(s)? This is where you should justify your choices.
How much time will you need to collect the data?
How will you gain access to participants and sources?
Do you foresee any potential obstacles and if so, how will you address them?
Make sure you are not simply compiling a list of methods. Instead, aim to make an argument for why this is the most appropriate, valid and reliable way to approach answering your question. Remember you should always be defending your choices!
Implications and Contributions to Knowledge
To ensure you finish your proposal on a strong note, it is a good idea to explore and/or emphasise the potential implications of the research. This means: what do you intend to contribute to existing knowledge on the topic?
Although you cannot know the results of your research until you have actually done the work, you should be going into the project with a clear idea of how your work will contribute to your field. This section might even be considered the most critical to your research proposal’s argument because it expresses exactly why your research is necessary.
You should consider covering at least some of the following topics:
Ways in which your work can challenge existing theories and assumptions in your field.
How your work will create the foundation for future research and theory.
The practical value your findings will provide to practitioners, educators and other academics in your field.
The problems or issues your work can potentially help to resolve.
Policies that could be impacted by your findings.
How your findings can be implemented in academia or other settings and how this will improve or otherwise transform these settings.
This part is not about stating the specific results that you expect to obtain but rather, this is the section where you explicitly state how your findings will be valuable.
This section is where you want to wrap it all up in a nice pretty bow. It is just like the concluding paragraph that you would structure and craft for a typical essay, see our essay planning template for guidance. You should briefly summarise your research proposal and reinforce your research purpose.
Reference List or Bibliography
Your research proposal MUST include proper citations for every source you have used and full references. Please consult your departmental referencing styles to ensure you are citing and referencing in an appropriate way.
Common mistakes to avoid
Try and avoid these common pitfalls when you are writing your research proposal:
Being too wordy: Remember formal does not mean flowery or pretentious. In fact, you should really aim to keep your writing as concise and accessible as possible. The more economically you can express your goals and ideas, the better.
Failing to cite relevant information/sources: You are adding to the existing body of knowledge on the subject you are covering. Therefore, your research proposal should reference the main research pieces in your field (while referencing them correctly!) and connect your proposal to these works in some way. This does not mean just communicating the relevance of your work, it should explicitly demonstrate your familiarity with the field.
Focusing too much on minor issues: Your research is most likely important for so many great reasons. However, they do not all need to be listed in your research proposal. Generally, including too many questions and issues in your research proposal can serve as a red flag and detract from your main purpose(s). This will in turn weaken your proposal. Only involve the main/key issues you plan to address.
Failing to make a strong argument for your research: This is the simplest way to undermine your proposal. Your proposal is a piece of persuasive and critical writing . This means that, although you are presenting your proposal in an academic and hopefully objective manner, the goal is to get the reader to say ‘yes’ to your work.
Not polishing your writing : If your proposal has spelling or grammatical errors, an inconsistent or inappropriate tone or even just awkward phrasing it can undermine your credibility. Check out some of these resources to help guide you in the right direction: Manchester Academic Phrasebank , Proofreading Guide , Essay Checklist and Grammar Guide . Remember to double and triple check your work.
Links and Resources
You might also need to include a schedule and/or a budget depending on your requirements. Some tools to help include:
Guidance for candidates
Manchester University Academic Phrasebank
Leeds Beckett Assignment Calculator
Calendarpedia
For guidance regarding specific research proposals (including templates), please check with your specific departments.
Related information
Dissertation planning
Writing a literature review
Research methods
Summer support
Are you getting ready to start a new academic year? Or preparing for summer resits?
We have a whole host of support ready for you to access whenever you need it. Our online resources allow you to develop your academic skills at your own pace, building on your existing skills ready for whatever you are facing next.
Take advantage of our curated Level Up Your Skills packages and start working through resources for your upcoming level of study, or use study skills online to find specific topics you want to work on.
An official website of the United States government
Here's how you know
Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
Secure .gov websites use HTTPS. A lock ( Lock Locked padlock ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.
Dear Colleague Letter: NSF and the Romanian Executive Agency for Higher Education, Research, Development and Innovation Funding (UEFISCDI) Lead Agency Opportunity in the Mathematical and Physical Sciences
September 6, 2024
Dear Colleagues:
The Mathematical & Physical Sciences Directorate (MPS) of the U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF) and the Romanian Executive Agency for Higher Education, Research, Development and Innovation Funding (UEFISCDI) are in a partnership to support international collaboration under the NSF-UEFISCDI Lead Agency Opportunity in Mathematical and Physical Sciences. The goal of this activity is to promote collaborative research within the mathematical sciences by reducing barriers to conducting research with international collaborators. The NSF-UEFISCDI Lead Agency Opportunity allows U.S. and Romanian researchers to submit a single collaborative proposal that will undergo a single merit review process through NSF as the lead agency.
This document provides guidelines for the preparation, submission, review and award of NSF-UEFISCDI Collaborative Proposals.
Under the NSF-UEFISCDI Lead Agency Opportunity, proposals may be accepted for collaborative research in areas at the intersection of MPS's and UEFISCDI's missions. Proposers should review the participating MPS and UEFISCDI programs for further information on which areas of research are eligible for support through this activity. Proposals are expected to adhere to typical proposal sizes and durations for the relevant UEFISCDI and MPS programs from which funding is sought. Proposals will be accepted for both interdisciplinary and disciplinary research projects. Please consult the list of participating MPS programs . Please note that this activity is limited to core programs within the MPS Directorate; no cross-cutting or agency-wide special programs are eligible.
Proposers are advised that all documents submitted to NSF for this opportunity may be shared by secure electronic means with UEFISCDI.
The collaborative opportunity described in this Dear Colleague Letter (DCL) remains in effect until archived.
PROPOSAL PREPARATION AND SUBMISSION
All proposals must fall within the mission and funding parameters of both NSF/MPS and UEFISCDI. Proposals that do not fall within the missions of both funding organizations will not be considered.
There is a two-stage application process. Stage 1, Expression of Interest (EOI) submission, must be completed prior to Stage 2, full proposal submission.
After acceptance of an EOI, proposals must be submitted in accordance with the deadlines of the participating NSF programs. For NSF programs with a proposal submission deadline, project teams should submit the EOI at least 60 days ahead of the proposal submission deadline. For NSF programs without a proposal submission deadline, project teams should submit the EOI 60 days ahead of their intended proposal submission date.
Stage 1: Expression of Interest (EOI)
Proposed Project Title.
Names, email addresses, and departmental and institutional affiliations of the U.S. and Romanian researchers.
Bottom-line estimates of total expected funding (including indirect costs) to be requested from NSF and UEFISCDI in appropriate monetary units (USD for U.S. budget and RON for Romanian budget).
Clear indication of the NSF/MPS target program. This may not be the only NSF program that will consider the Expression of Interest, but identification of the target program allows for faster consideration.
a statement on the intellectual merit of the proposed activity, and
a statement on the broader impacts of the proposed activity.
The U.S. portion of the work should fall within the scope of one or more participating programs as noted above. The Romanian portion of the work should fall within the scope of Bilateral/Multilateral Complex Projects, Lead Agency Procedure .
It is advisable for proposers to consult with their institution's Office of Sponsored Research for budget advice prior to finalizing a total estimate. Full proposal budgets should not vary from those specified in the EOI by more than 10% and any such changes should be fully justified.
To submit the above information, proposers complete an Expression of Interest (EOI) form . Proposers email the completed form to [email protected] at least 60 days prior to the intended proposal submission date. EOIs will be shared with UEFISCDI and both agencies will review the submitted information to check for eligibility (namely whether the proposed research fits within the participating agencies' portfolios and whether the proposed researchers and institutions meet the agencies' funding eligibility requirements). UEFISCDI eligibility requirements for the Romanian side can be found here: https://uefiscdi.gov.ro/nsf-uefiscdi-lead-agency-opportunity .
Upon confirmation from the NSF that both agencies have reviewed the EOI and confirmed that the proposed collaborative research is appropriate for review under the NSF-UEFISCDI Lead Agency Opportunity, NSF will contact the proposers to inform them whether they are encouraged to submit a full research proposal to the NSF/MPS program indicated. In some cases, an alteration of the budget request may be required in the full proposal submission.
If this communication has not taken place prior to a proposal submission, the proposal will be returned without review.
Stage 2: Full Proposal Submission
Proposers from both countries are to collaborate to write a single proposal. It is the responsibility of the U.S. proposer to submit the proposal to the appropriate NSF program for review. The full proposal should be submitted within twelve months of the EOI being approved. In the case of the original EOI expiring, proposers should contact NSF for clarification on how to proceed; a new EOI may be necessary.
The proposal should indicate that it is to be considered under this Lead Agency Opportunity by prefacing the title with "NSF-UEFISCDI:".
Proposers must comply with the proposal preparation requirements outlined in NSF's Proposal & Award Policies & Procedures Guide (PAPPG). The proposal must be submitted to the appropriate standing program within MPS via Research.gov or Grants.gov. If proposers are using Research.gov and the research collaboration only includes one US institution, proposers may select the option "Single Proposal (with or without sub-awards)" in Step 4. Proposal Details of the "Prepare New Full Proposal" wizard in Research.gov. Although NSF-UEFISCDI projects involve collaborative research, proposals are only classified as "collaborative" in Research.gov if they either 1) have sub-award(s) or 2) the lead proposal has associated non-lead proposal(s) attached to it. For more information on NSF collaborative proposals, see Chapter II.E.3 of the PAPPG.
The proposal should only indicate the U.S. expenses on the NSF Budget Form. A detailed breakdown of funding requested from UEFISCDI should be added to the proposal as a Supplementary Document, using the Budget Breakdown Template available on UEFISCDI's website, here: https://uefiscdi.gov.ro/nsf-uefiscdi-lead-agency-opportunity . This document is to be shared with UEFISCDI to verify eligibility of costs requested. The Budget Justification section of the proposal should address the full project budget (that is, both the U.S. and Romanian funding items).
Biographical Sketch - Required. The biographical information must be clearly identified as "non-NSF funded collaborators" biographical information and uploaded as a single PDF file in the Other Supplementary Documents section of the proposal. Use of a specific format is not required except in specific cases when the individual announcement to the community for the participating programs will indicate a required NSF format.
Collaborators and Other Affiliations (COA) Information - Required. The COA information should be provided through the use of the COA template , identified as "non-NSF funded collaborators" COA information, and uploaded as a PDF file in the Single Copy Documents section of the proposal.
Synergistic activities - Required
Current and Pending (Other) Support - Not required.
Results from Prior NSF Support - Not required.
An institutional statement in support of the joint submission must be provided by each Romanian partner organization in the proposal submission. This statement should be in the form of a signed letter from an Authorized Organizational Representative including the following text: "I confirm on behalf of [insert name or institution] that the U.S.-Romanian collaborative proposal between [insert name of the lead agency PI and institution] and [insert name of the non-lead agency PI and institution] is endorsed and has been submitted by [name of research office]." This letter must be included in the "Supplementary Documents" section.
For projects involving human subjects/participants or animals, proposers are expected to adhere to the policies, law, and guidelines concerning research ethics and must have requisite institutional approvals or exemptions in place prior to any potential award.
Research funded through this Lead Agency Opportunity is to be conducted in accordance with NSF's Responsible and Ethical Conduct of Research Policies ( https://www.nsf.gov/od/recr.jsp ).
Proposers are advised that all documents submitted to NSF as the Lead Agency may be shared securely, via a password-protected SharePoint or extranet site, with UEFISCDI. These documents will be hosted on a site associated with NSF, housed behind firewalls, and using NSF-specific protocols to ensure data protection (personal data protection included).
Proposals that request duplicative funding from NSF and/or UEFISCDI may be returned without review.
MERIT REVIEW
NSF-UEFISCDI collaborative proposals will be reviewed alongside all other unsolicited or standard research grant proposals received in the same funding round or call and will not undergo a special or separate review process. Proposals will be reviewed in accordance with NSF's standard merit review criteria.
FUNDING DECISIONS
There are no separate NSF funds available for this effort; proposals will compete with all other proposals submitted to participating programs and will be evaluated on the strengths of the proposed intellectual merit, broader impacts, and any program- and/or solicitation-specific review criteria that may apply. NSF, as the lead agency, will use its usual internal procedures to determine whether a proposal will be awarded or declined. Funding decisions may be subject to budget limits.
All proposers will be advised whether their proposal has been recommended for funding or will be declined. Proposers will receive copies of the reviewers' unattributed comments and, where applicable, a panel summary.
Once a proposer has been notified of a pending award, the Romanian researcher(s) associated with the project must submit a copy of the proposal to the UEFISCDI so that each agency has complete documentation of the overall proposed research project. UEFISCDI will provide further guidance to successful proposers at this stage.
For projects recommended for award, NSF and UEFISCDI will coordinate the U.S. and Romanian award timing as much as possible. However, because the participating agencies have different funding cycles, it is possible that some projects will have delayed start dates to wait until funds become available or until all pre-award requirements are met. Wherever possible, both agencies will endeavor to hold standard turnaround times for each participating agency, but in exceptional circumstances outcomes could be delayed.
RESUBMISSIONS
Should a proposal be declined for funding, proposers should follow these guidelines on resubmission:
refer to the resubmission guidelines of both agencies.
submit a new EOI at least 3 months in advance of resubmitting a full proposal. The EOI should clearly indicate that it is a resubmission and what changes have been made. Both agencies reserve the right to reject an EOI that does not meet their resubmission criteria.
POST-AWARD CONSIDERATIONS
Award recipients will be expected to comply with the award conditions and reporting requirements of the agencies from which they receive funding.
Award recipients are to acknowledge both NSF and the UEFISCDI in any reports or publications arising from the grant.
Requests for no cost extensions will be considered by NSF and UEFISCDI using standard procedures. Requests for changes to awards will be discussed with other involved funding agencies before a mutual decision is reached.
DATA PROTECTION CONSIDERATIONS
NSF and UEFISCDI will share relevant information and data—whether in connection with the proposal and award process, or thereafter during the post award process. Data are expected to be shared between NSF and UEFISCDI to enable the secure and efficient processing of full proposals for the NSF- UEFISCDI Lead Agency Opportunity. Data shared may include proposal attachments, anonymized peer reviews, and panel summaries. NSF and UEFISCDI are committed to maintaining data confidentiality, protection, and privacy and intend to fully abide by their own applicable laws and policies concerning the sharing of data in our collaborative activities.
PROGRAM CONTACTS
For general inquiries about the NSF-UEFISCDI lead agency opportunity, please contact [email protected] . For inquiries pertaining to the specific MPS programs to which an NSF-UEFISCDI may be submitted, please contact the program officers listed on the specific programs' web pages. A list of participating MPS programs can be found at the bottom of NSF's web page on international collaborations with Romania, here: OISE International Collaborations - Romania .
Additionally, NSF's Office of International Science and Engineering (OISE) helps to coordinate the overall engagement between NSF and UEFISCDI. The current OISE program manager for Romania is listed at https://www.nsf.gov/od/oise/country-list.jsp .
Denise Caldwell Acting Assistant Director Mathematical and Physical Sciences
An official website of the United States government
Here's how you know
Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
Secure .gov websites use HTTPS. A lock ( Lock Locked padlock ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.
Active funding opportunity
Nsf 24-573: epscor research infrastructure improvement-focused epscor collaborations program (rii-fec), program solicitation, document information, document history.
Posted: May 16, 2024
Replaces: NSF 22-633
Program Solicitation NSF 24-573
Office of Integrative Activities
Letter of Intent Due Date(s) (required) (due by 5 p.m. submitting organization's local time):
December 17, 2024
Third Tuesday in December, Annually Thereafter
Full Proposal Deadline(s) (due by 5 p.m. submitting organization's local time):
January 28, 2025
Fourth Tuesday in January, Annually Thereafter
Important Information And Revision Notes
Only jurisdictions that meet the EPSCoR eligibility criteria may submit proposals to the RII-FEC competition.
The EPSCoR Research Infrastructure Improvement Program: Track-2 (RII Track-2 FEC) has been renamed to the EPSCoR Research Infrastructure Improvement-Focused EPSCoR Collaboration Program (RII-FEC).
The focus area for the RII-FEC program will be announced via a biennial Dear Colleague Letter (DCL) found at this link: EPSCoR Program links.
Proposals may be submitted either as (i) a collaborative proposal from multiple organizations or (ii) a proposal from one organization with support for non-lead collaborating organizations requested as subawards.
An organization may only submit one proposal to the RII-FEC competition as lead. However, an organization may serve as a non-lead in a collaborative submission or as subawardee on any number of additional proposals.
For proposals from one organization with support for non-lead collaborating organizations requested as subawards, each submission must have at least one collaborator (specifically as Principal Investigator (PI) or co-PI) from each of the different EPSCoR jurisdictions.
An investigator may serve as PI or Co-PI on only one RII-FEC award at any given time. However, the investigator may serve as other Senior/Key Personnel on any number of RII-FEC submissions or awards.
Any proposal submitted in response to this solicitation should be submitted in accordance with the NSF Proposal & Award Policies & Procedures Guide (PAPPG) that is in effect for the relevant due date to which the proposal is being submitted. The NSF PAPPG is regularly revised and it is the responsibility of the proposer to ensure that the proposal meets the requirements specified in this solicitation and the applicable version of the PAPPG. Submitting a proposal prior to a specified deadline does not negate this requirement.
Summary Of Program Requirements
General information.
Program Title:
EPSCoR Research Infrastructure Improvement-Focused EPSCoR Collaborations Program (RII-FEC)
The Established Program to Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR) is designed to fulfill the mandate of the National Science Foundation (NSF) to promote scientific progress nationwide. EPSCoR eligibility status is yearly updated and reported in the EPSCoR website (see EPSCoR eligibility ). Through this program, NSF establishes partnerships with government, higher education, and industry that are designed to affect sustainable improvements in a jurisdiction's research infrastructure, Research and Development (R&D) capacity, and hence, its R&D competitiveness. The RII-FEC program (formerly known as "EPSCoR Track-2 program") builds inter-jurisdictional collaborative teams of EPSCoR investigators in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) focus areas consistent with the current National Science Foundation Strategic Plan . Projects are investigator-driven and must include researchers from at least two EPSCoR eligible jurisdictions with complementary expertise and resources necessary to address challenges, which neither party could address as well or as rapidly independently. RII-FEC projects have a comprehensive and integrated vision to drive discovery and build sustainable STEM capacity that exemplifies individual, institutional, geographic, and disciplinary diversity. The projects' STEM research and education activities seek to broaden participation through the strategic inclusion and integration of all individuals, institutions, and sectors. Additionally, EPSCoR recognizes that the development of early-career faculty from backgrounds that are traditionally underrepresented in STEM fields is critical to sustaining and advancing research capacity. The integration and inclusion of Minority-Serving Institutions (MSIs), women's colleges, Primarily Undergraduate Institutions (PUIs), and two-year colleges is a critical component of this sustainable STEM capacity.
Cognizant Program Officer(s):
Please note that the following information is current at the time of publishing. See program website for any updates to the points of contact.
Jose Colom-Ustariz, Program Director, NSF, telephone: (703) 292-7088, email: [email protected]
Lisa C. Cliggett, Program Director, NSF, telephone: (703) 292-2759, email: [email protected]
Benjamin J. McCall, Program Director, NSF, telephone: (703) 292-7916, email: [email protected]
47.041 --- Engineering
47.049 --- Mathematical and Physical Sciences
47.050 --- Geosciences
47.070 --- Computer and Information Science and Engineering
47.074 --- Biological Sciences
47.075 --- Social Behavioral and Economic Sciences
47.076 --- STEM Education
47.079 --- Office of International Science and Engineering
47.083 --- Office of Integrative Activities (OIA)
47.084 --- NSF Technology, Innovation and Partnerships
Award Information
Anticipated Type of Award: Cooperative Agreement
Estimated Number of Awards: 12
Anticipated Funding Amount: $12,000,000 to $18,000,000
Estimated program budget, number of awards and average award size/duration are subject to the quality of proposals and availability of funds.
Eligibility Information
Who May Submit Proposals:
Proposals may only be submitted by the following: Institutions or organizations in jurisdictions that meet the EPSCoR eligibility criteria. Institutions of higher education (PhD-granting and non-PhD-granting), acting on behalf of their faculty members, that are accredited in and have a campus in the United States, its territories, or possessions. Distinct academic campuses (e.g., that award their own degrees, have independent administrative structures, admissions policies, alumni associations, etc.) within multi-campus systems qualify as separate submission-eligible organizations. Campuses that plan to submit a proposal through the Sponsored Projects Office of other campuses or organizations should contact NSF to discuss eligibility as early as possible and at least six weeks before submitting such a proposal. Not-for-profit, non-degree-granting domestic U.S. organizations, acting on behalf of their employees, that include (but are not limited to) independent museums and science centers, observatories, research laboratories, professional societies, and similar organizations that are directly associated with the Nation's research or educational activities. These organizations must have an independent, permanent administrative organization (e.g., an office of sponsored research) located in the United States, its territories, or possessions, and have 501(c)(3) tax status. Tribal Governments with the governing body of any Indian or Alaska Native tribe, band, nation, pueblo, village, or community that the Secretary of the Interior acknowledges to exist as an Indian tribe under the Federally Recognized Indian Tribe List Act of 1994 (25 U.S.C. 479a, et seq.) or Indigenous communities that are not recognized by the Federally Recognized Indian Tribe List Act of 1994 (25 U.S.C. 479a, et seq.). It is encouraged that the lead institution/organization or at least one collaborative partner be an institution from one of the categories below: Emerging Research Institutions as defined in 42 §USC 18901 as institutions of higher education with an established undergraduate or graduate program that have less than $50,000,000 in Federal research expenditures; Minority-serving institutions, as defined by the U.S. Department of Education; Primarily Undergraduate Institutions (PUIs), including two-year colleges, that award associate degrees, bachelor's degrees, and/or master's degrees in NSF-supported fields, but have awarded 20 or fewer Ph.D./D.Sci. degrees in all NSF-supported fields during the combined previous two academic years; Institutions of higher education that are dedicated to serving students with disabilities, as listed in Table 1, page 5, of NSF's 2008 Broadening Participation report ( https://nsf-gov-resources.nsf.gov/2022-03/nsf_frameworkforaction_0808.pdf ); Degree-granting women's colleges, as listed in the U.S. Department of Education Digest of Education Statistics ( https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d21/tables/dt21_312.30.asp ). Proposals may be submitted either as a collaborative from multiple organizations or one organization with support for collaborators requested as subawards.
Who May Serve as PI:
Principal Investigators of proposed RII-FEC projects must be affiliated with and employed by eligible organizations in EPSCoR jurisdictions. Each EPSCoR jurisdiction participating in a proposed project must be represented by a PI or at least one co-PI. The PI and co-PIs must all have research expertise relevant to the research being proposed. PIs and Co-PIs on current RII-FEC (previously known as NSF EPSCoR RII Track-2 FEC) awards with end dates (including any No Cost Extensions) after October 31 of the year of submission are not eligible to submit proposals as a PI or Co-PI. However, an individual may serve as senior personnel on any number of RII-FEC proposals or awards.
Limit on Number of Proposals per Organization: 1
Limit on Number of Proposals per PI or co-PI: 1
Proposal Preparation and Submission Instructions
A. proposal preparation instructions.
Letters of Intent: Submission of Letters of Intent is required. Please see the full text of this solicitation for further information.
Preliminary Proposal Submission: Not required
Full Proposals submitted via Research.gov: NSF Proposal and Award Policies and Procedures Guide (PAPPG) guidelines apply. The complete text of the PAPPG is available electronically on the NSF website at: https://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=pappg .
Full Proposals submitted via Grants.gov: NSF Grants.gov Application Guide: A Guide for the Preparation and Submission of NSF Applications via Grants.gov guidelines apply (Note: The NSF Grants.gov Application Guide is available on the Grants.gov website and on the NSF website at: https://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=grantsgovguide ).
B. Budgetary Information
C. due dates, proposal review information criteria.
Merit Review Criteria:
National Science Board approved criteria. Additional merit review criteria apply. Please see the full text of this solicitation for further information.
Award Administration Information
Award Conditions:
Standard NSF award conditions apply.
Reporting Requirements:
Additional reporting requirements apply. Please see the full text of this solicitation for further information.
I. Introduction
A. EPSCoR Mission and Goals
The mission of EPSCoR is to enhance the research competitiveness of targeted jurisdictions (states, territories, and commonwealths) by strengthening STEM capacity and capability through a diverse portfolio of investments from talent development to local infrastructure. Through its programmatic goals, EPSCoR seeks to:
Catalyze the development of research capabilities and the creation of new knowledge that expands jurisdictions' contributions to scientific discovery, innovation, learning, and knowledge-based prosperity;
Establish sustainable STEM education, training, and professional development pathways that advance jurisdiction-identified research areas and workforce development;
Broaden direct participation of diverse individuals, institutions, and organizations in the project's science and engineering research and education initiatives;
Effect sustainable engagement of project participants and partners, the jurisdiction, the national research community, and the general public through data-sharing, communication, outreach, and dissemination; and
Impact research, education, and economic development beyond the project at academic, government, and private sector levels.
B. Criteria for Eligibility to Participate in the RII-FEC
Eligibility to take part in this competition is based on the current table of EPSCoR eligible jurisdictions (see EPSCoR eligibility ). Only eligible organizations in EPSCoR eligible jurisdictions may take part in this competition.
C. RII-FEC Program
Well-designed collaborative strategies are essential to EPSCoR's goal of enhancing the competitive position of research and research-based education in science and engineering. This approach can help overcome impediments posed by limited infrastructure or human capital within a single jurisdiction and can enable broad engagement at the frontiers of discovery and innovation in science and engineering.
This RII-FEC solicitation responds directly to national studies and community input, including the National Science Foundation Strategic Plan , Envisioning the Future of NSF EPSCoR report, and the CHIPS and Science Act . RII-FEC seeks to build nationally and internationally competitive collaborative teams of EPSCoR investigators by providing a mechanism to coalesce investigator expertise into a critical mass for a sustained, effective research and education partnership in NSF priority areas.
EPSCoR support of a proposed research infrastructure improvement activity should not duplicate other available federal, jurisdictional, or organizational resources and should add significant value to increasing scientific competitiveness at the national or regional level.
II. Program Description
The primary driver for RII-FEC investments is the need to build STEM-driven, inter-jurisdictional research collaborations with the potential to be nationally and internationally competitive. The Project Description should include a strong rationale for the collaboration and demonstrate that the partnership is designed to facilitate discovery and innovation in the focus area (detailed in the published biennial Dear Colleague Letter), which neither party could address as well, or as rapidly, alone. RII-FEC projects are unique in their integration of researchers into collaborative teams across EPSCoR jurisdictions, and must develop a diverse, well-prepared, STEM-enabled workforce necessary to sustain research competitiveness.
For NSF EPSCoR to achieve this vision, requires not only advancing the frontiers of science, engineering, and education but also ensuring that U.S. research is an inclusive enterprise that harnesses the talent of all sectors of American society a research enterprise that incorporates the rich demographic and geographic diversity of the nation.
Therefore, the recruitment and/or development of early-career faculty as well as groups at all levels of this project who are traditionally underrepresented in STEM fields, including postdoctoral researchers, undergraduates, graduate students, and K-12 students, are critical in achieving this goal and must be an integral component of the proposed project.
Over the long term, RII-FEC investments are expected to result in sustained improvements in research competitiveness, enabling EPSCoR investigators to successfully pursue significant opportunities of national and international importance in science and engineering research and education. It is expected that previous NSF and other federal agency investments will be leveraged and translated into advancing the understanding of the focus area. All proposals must clearly indicate the intended social impact, demonstrating how the project will benefit the community in the involved jurisdiction(s). Non-EPSCoR and international collaborations may be included, but no EPSCoR funds should be directed to these organizations
Central to the success of the proposal is a clear demonstration that the collaboration is well-positioned to produce outcomes that cannot be obtained through the efforts of a team in a single jurisdiction working alone. The proposal must clearly identify the roles and contributions of each partner in the project, the anticipated increases in research capacity and competitiveness, the projected workforce development and educational plan and outcomes, and the benefits to the jurisdictions, the Nation, and society. It is expected that these collaborations be balanced, with participating jurisdictions each contributing to and benefiting from projects at levels that are appropriate to their capabilities.
To ensure maximum impact of available programmatic funds, requests for RII-FEC funding must:
Add significantly to the research capacity of the participating jurisdictions in the focus area;
Contribute to the advancement of research and innovation in the focus area;
Illustrate how the participating jurisdictions' research capacities will be positively impacted by the collaborative effort;
Outline clear plans for the recruitment and/or development of the full spectrum of diverse talent in STEM as early-career faculty;
Engage the full diversity of the participating jurisdictions' resources including two- and four-year colleges, Minority-Serving Institutions, and local and state industries in STEM workforce development;
Include social and economic expertise to understand and assess the societal implications of the focus area, as detailed in the published biennial Dear Colleague Letter (DCL); and
Present a sustainability plan for obtaining subsequent, sustained non-EPSCoR funding from federal, jurisdictional, or private sector sources.
RII-FEC proposals are expected to be STEM-driven collaborations and the PI and co-PIs should all be active researchers in the research topic(s) of the proposal. Proposals should clearly explain how the proposed research, education, and workforce development activities will create or increase the capacity for the jurisdictions involved to participate in continued research. Proposals must include a timetable or strategic plan for achieving those goals, and/or a logic model with a clearly articulated theory of change that identifies appropriate indicators of progress towards the desired outcomes.
The RII-FEC focus area will be announced biennially through a DCL, found at this link: EPSCoR Program links .
Broadening Impact
EPSCoR's mission of enhancing the research competitiveness of targeted jurisdictions by strengthening STEM capacity and capability aligns with RII-FEC goals to "broaden the participation of diverse groups and institutions in STEM." By leveraging current and previous NSF substantial investments, as well as investments from other federal agencies, proposed projects are expected to create a significant and collective impact on targeted jurisdictions. Proposals submitted for RII-FEC competition could leverage already documented outcomes from any project(s) related to previous investments across multiple jurisdictions and collectively bring those outcomes together to address new opportunities that impact communities within the targeted jurisdiction(s). As a result, these projects are expected to create or establish a solid pathway towards benefiting and positively impacting the jurisdictions in concert with a diverse STEM workforce.
Proposals must demonstrate understanding of societal impacts of the research problem by incorporating relevant community members, organizations and social scientists during project development, planning, and project design. By ensuring appropriate community engagement throughout the project lifecycle, RII-FEC projects will be better positioned to have positive societal impacts in their jurisdictions and beyond. These positive societal impacts may include community empowerment through collaborative problem solving for affected communities, training for community members in project related activities, and development of innovative educational plans, among others. It is expected that project teams will implement activities that build scientific knowledge, grow the scale of impact, and ground the research agenda with attention to societal implications. Additionally, proposals should include a vision for how the project will be sustained, and a description of plans for technology transfer and/or innovation, if applicable.
Workforce Development
To address the anticipated needs of the future workforce, projects should develop strong educational programs in the proposed research areas that can be implemented across institutions of higher learning in participating jurisdictions and directly contribute to building a skilled workforce in areas associated with the project focus. Additionally, STEM talent must be cultivated in populations traditionally underrepresented in STEM for jurisdictions to keep pace with changing workforce needs. Accordingly, proposals should include a strong commitment to building a diverse workforce. Involvement and mentoring of early-career faculty is required and a detailed mentoring plan that leverages national best practices for STEM mentoring is expected. More information on NSF's commitment to broadening participation can be found in NSF's Strategic Plan.
III. Award Information
Up to 12 awards for a total funding of $18,000,000 are anticipated, pending the availability of funds. The maximum RII-FEC award amount is based on the number of eligible jurisdictions participating in the project. If organizations from two eligible EPSCoR jurisdictions collaborate on a proposal, the award amount may not exceed $4 million for up to four years. If organizations from three or more eligible EPSCoR jurisdictions collaborate on a proposal, the award amount may not exceed $6 million for up to four years. The program budget, number of awards, and average award size/duration are subject to the quality of proposals and availability of funds.
IV. Eligibility Information
Additional Eligibility Info:
V. Proposal Preparation And Submission Instructions
Letters of Intent (required) :
A Letter of Intent (LOI) must be submitted by the Authorized Organizational Representative (AOR) of the submitting organization by the applicable LOI due date. Proposals received that are not preceded by an LOI from the AOR of the submitting organization will be returned without review.
The LOI contains "Synopsis" and "Other Comments" text data fields. LOIs should use these fields to describe, in as much detail as possible, the research to be addressed by the proposal. LOIs will be used solely in preparation for merit review. LOIs will not be seen by reviewers or used in any manner to judge the merit of the proposed research. Due to the space limitations, it is in the proposer's best interest to provide information on the proposed research topics only and to avoid providing extraneous information such as prior accomplishments, motivation for the research, information on the qualifications of the project participants, etc. However, the LOI should indicate EPSCoR jurisdictions and institutions and/or organizations participating in the project.
A list of science/research keywords should be entered under the "Research Keywords" entry to assist EPSCoR staff in preparing for proposal review.
Letter of Intent Preparation Instructions :
When submitting a Letter of Intent through Research.gov in response to this Program Solicitation please note the conditions outlined below:
Submission by an Authorized Organizational Representative (AOR) is required when submitting Letters of Intent.
A Minimum of 0 and Maximum of 4 Other Senior Project Personnel are permitted
A Minimum of 0 and Maximum of 99 Other Participating Organizations are permitted
Research Keywords are required when submitting Letters of Intent
Submission of multiple Letters of Intent is not permitted
Full Proposal Preparation Instructions : Proposers may opt to submit proposals in response to this Program Solicitation via Research.gov or Grants.gov.
Full Proposals submitted via Research.gov: Proposals submitted in response to this program solicitation should be prepared and submitted in accordance with the general guidelines contained in the NSF Proposal and Award Policies and Procedures Guide (PAPPG). The complete text of the PAPPG is available electronically on the NSF website at: https://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=pappg . Paper copies of the PAPPG may be obtained from the NSF Publications Clearinghouse, telephone (703) 292-8134 or by e-mail from [email protected] . The Prepare New Proposal setup will prompt you for the program solicitation number.
Full proposals submitted via Grants.gov: Proposals submitted in response to this program solicitation via Grants.gov should be prepared and submitted in accordance with the NSF Grants.gov Application Guide: A Guide for the Preparation and Submission of NSF Applications via Grants.gov . The complete text of the NSF Grants.gov Application Guide is available on the Grants.gov website and on the NSF website at: ( https://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=grantsgovguide ). To obtain copies of the Application Guide and Application Forms Package, click on the Apply tab on the Grants.gov site, then click on the Apply Step 1: Download a Grant Application Package and Application Instructions link and enter the funding opportunity number, (the program solicitation number without the NSF prefix) and press the Download Package button. Paper copies of the Grants.gov Application Guide also may be obtained from the NSF Publications Clearinghouse, telephone (703) 292-8134 or by e-mail from [email protected] .
In determining which method to utilize in the electronic preparation and submission of the proposal, please note the following:
Collaborative Proposals. All collaborative proposals submitted as separate submissions from multiple organizations must be submitted via Research.gov. PAPPG Chapter II.E.3 provides additional information on collaborative proposals.
See PAPPG Chapter II.D.2 for guidance on the required sections of a full research proposal submitted to NSF. Please note that the proposal preparation instructions provided in this program solicitation may deviate from the PAPPG instructions.
The following instructions are specific to proposals submitted to the RII-FEC competition and supplement the NSF PAPPG and NSF Grants.gov Application Guide:
RII-FEC proposals may only be submitted by organizations in the eligible EPSCoR jurisdictions listed in Section IV of this solicitation. An organization may only serve as lead on one proposal, either as the lead on a single proposal with subawards, or as the lead on a set of separately submitted collaborative proposals.
Proposal Set-Up: Select "Prepare New Full Proposal" in Research.gov. Search for and select this solicitation title in Step One of the Full Proposal wizards. In the proposal details section, select "Single proposal (with or without subawards)" or "Separately submitted a collaborative proposal". The project title must begin with "FEC:" and follow with an informative title in the topic area.
1. Senior/Key Personnel.
The lead PI must be a researcher from the submitting jurisdiction and all other participating jurisdictions should have at least one individual designated as PI or co-PI on the proposal.
2. Project Summary (1 page maximum).
In accordance with the guidance in the PAPPG, the Project Summary must include three separate sections labeled Overview, Intellectual Merit, and Broader Impacts. In the Overview section, briefly describe the collaborating organizations; the vision and goals of the collaboration; a statement of the objectives and methods to be employed; expected impacts of the proposed activities; and plans for sustaining collaborations and impacts beyond the award period. At the end of the Broader Impacts section, indicate the Letter of Intent (LOI) number, and the NSF Directorate(s), Division(s), and Program(s) that most closely align with the proposal's research focus.
3. Project Description (20 pages maximum).
This section should present the proposed activities in a clear, compelling way and describe how the activities for which NSF support is being requested will lead to sustainable impacts. In addition to the requirements contained in the NSF PAPPG, the Project Description must articulate clear plans for elements described below.
The Project Description may not exceed 20 pages, including text, as well as any graphic or illustrative materials. Maximum page limitations also apply to specific subsections of the Project Description. Note that if the maximum page limit for each subsection is used, the total number of pages will exceed the maximum allowed for the Project Description. Proposals that exceed the page limitations or that do not contain all items described below will be returned without review.
In addition to the separate section labeled Broader Impacts required by the PAPPG, the Project Description must contain the following subsections:
3.1 Status and Overview (2 pages maximum).
Describe the motivation and rationale for establishing the collaboration, and how the proposed project addresses the identified focus area for this competition.
3.2 Results from Relevant Prior Support (2 pages maximum).
Describe results from relevant prior NSF support and other prior federal or other investments of the PIs and co-PIs in the last five years. This section should include a description of the activities and impacts of previous awards, including major accomplishments in both intellectual merit and broader impacts
3.3 Research, Collaboration, and Workforce Development (18 pages maximum).
This section of the proposal should provide a concise description of the long-term research and education goals and intellectual focus in sufficient detail to enable their scientific merit and broader impacts to be assessed. The proposal must present the proposed research in the context of other efforts in the field (with appropriate references), state the major challenges and how they will be addressed, and comment on the novelty and/or originality of the proposed approach. In addition to providing explicit evidence for the intellectual merit and broader impacts of the research and education activities, this section should:
Identify the faculty-level participants and estimate the numbers of postdoctoral, graduate, and undergraduate research participants. Briefly outline the resources (available and planned) to accomplish the research goals.
Establish the means of developing a coordinated, collaborative approach involving investigators across different organizations, jurisdictions, and disciplines. Describe interactions with other groups and organizations among the jurisdictions, and at the national and international levels, as appropriate. The research and education program description must demonstrate how the collaboration will advance research, education, and workforce development. The narrative should demonstrate how the collaboration's activities would advance the frontiers of knowledge and future research competitiveness of the participating jurisdictions in the proposed research areas.
Provide relevant baseline data regarding any of the research, education, workforce development, or other project targets and goals. For example, in cases where quantitative goals or targets are proposed, baseline data regarding the current situation or past performance should be given.
3.3.1 Inter-jurisdictional Collaborations and Partnerships.
Interdisciplinary collaborative research brings with it the challenge of developing productive high-performing research teams involving multiple researchers from different organizations and disciplinary expertise. This section must clearly present the rationale for the composition of the teams, a description of the leadership structure, and the context for establishing the collaboration. The research expertise of the PIs and co-PIs must be explained in the context of the proposed research activities. Coordination and synergy among the collaborators should be summarized and the role of each of the faculty-level investigators should be clearly defined. Mechanisms that foster collaboration across the teams, such as all-hands meetings, and risk-mitigation strategies should be described. The compelling ways in which the project leadership plans to coordinate the activities into a cohesive project should be presented, with well-articulated goals and strategies to achieve them.
This section must include a specific discussion of how the collaborative effort will positively impact each participating jurisdiction and its respective target population, including methodologies and metrics for measuring success. Proposals should also explain how each participating jurisdiction will contribute to and benefit from the proposed collaboration in a meaningful and distinct way.
3.3.2 Sustainability of the Team.
A detailed plan for long-term sustainability of the proposed activities and infrastructure (physical, cyber, and human) beyond the lifespan of the project is required. Plans should clearly delineate what the expected research impacts will be on the jurisdiction(s) involved and how they could holistically tie into affecting populations of the jurisdiction(s) involved. The plan must provide realistic, annual metrics to assess the short and long-term economic impacts of this project. This could include realistic timelines for new submissions of proposals to NSF and other federal and state programs by the project team in the focus area topic, or industry and state partnerships that lead to alternative pathways to sustainability. The plan should also include how proposed new faculty hires, if any, will be supported beyond the award period.
3.3.3 Workforce Development.
The scope of RII-FEC activities must include STEM workforce development activities that are integrated with the research and education components of the project and contribute to the preparation of a diverse, new cadre of skilled researchers, innovators, and educators who represent the diversity of the nation.
The workforce development plan must include explicit efforts for the recruitment and/or development of early-career faculty in the project's research activities. It should also describe in detail the mechanisms to attract and mentor these individuals, to enable their development and success as educators and researchers, and their specific contributions to achieving the project's goals in the focus area. For this solicitation, early-career faculty are defined as those who are employed as assistant professors in tenure track (or equivalent) positions, or research assistant professors at the time of submission of the proposal, or who are hired into such a position during the award period.
The research and educational training for postdoctoral, graduate, and undergraduate trainees should be designed to develop a workforce that is able to integrate as appropriate and impact the jurisdiction within the chosen topic of the project. This should provide them with skills to work easily across disciplinary and other perceived boundaries and to interface with stakeholders such as academia, industry, government, and the general public. This can include the involvement of K-12, two-year, and four-year colleges, with the intent to develop an inclusive workforce appropriate to populate new niches that are created through the project's activities. In particular, the proposed program should present an implementation strategy, informed by national best practices for building research competencies, and research mentoring. The implementation strategy should include an initial baseline assessment, clearly articulated goals, milestones, and timelines.
3.3.4 Evaluation and Assessment Plan (2 pages maximum).
An independent external evaluator must provide annual evaluation and assessment of the project. In addition, quantitative collection is required as part of the centralized project output data collection (see below) and should be used in concert with any additional quantitative or qualitative data collected by the required independent evaluator.
The Evaluation and Assessment plan should be an integral part of the project design to aid in the identification of outcomes and impacts of the project's goals and objectives as well as a tool for providing effective feedback to the management team through an independent evaluator. Evaluation plans should include strategies for formative and summative assessments, including goals, metrics, and milestones. The plan must include metrics for the strength of the collaboration and workforce development, including submission of collaborative proposals and associated awards, collaborative publications, progression of early-career faculty, innovations, research results, longitudinal tracking of undergraduates, graduate students, and post-docs, and it should document how the collaborative efforts evolve over time.
In addition to the project-specific evaluation, all RII-FEC awardees will also be required to participate in a centralized project outcomes data-collection activity coordinated by EPSCoR and carried out by its designated entity. This activity is intended to facilitate standardized, accurate metrics tracking across projects and to complement the projects' individual evaluation and assessment efforts.
3.4 Management and Implementation Plan (2 pages maximum).
Proposals must include a comprehensive plan for the project's management, including the roles and responsibilities of key personnel, how the PI and Co-PIs plan to communicate and coordinate with each other and the project team, how the centralized project output data-collection will be integrated into their evaluation mechanisms as described above, and how the project administrative requirements will be managed across all areas. The plan should describe the responsibilities of any administrative staff expected to support the project on a full or part-time basis.
4. Budget and Budget Justification .
See Section V.B. below for information and guidance.
5. Facilities, Equipment, and Other Resources.
In accordance with the guidance contained in the NSF PAPPG, provide a description of relevant available facilities, equipment, and other resources relevant to the project for each EPSCoR jurisdiction in the collaboration.
6. Senior/Key Personnel Documents
In accordance with the guidance contained in the NSF PAPPG, the following documents must be provided for each individual designated as senior/key personnel on the project:
Biographical Sketch(es)
Current and Pending (Other) Support
Collaborators & Other Affiliations Information
Synergistic Activities
It is permitted to include biographical sketches for any named collaborators ("Other Personnel") whose expertise is crucial to the success of the project, including the independent evaluator(s). If doing so, these biographical sketches must be uploaded in the Other Personnel Biographical Information section in Research.gov and they must conform to NSF guidelines for biographical sketches. Do not include biographical sketches for members of External Advisory Committees or Boards.
7. Other Supplementary Documents (in addition to those required by the NSF PAPPG)
List of Participants. Provide a list of participating senior/key personnel (faculty level and equivalent) by name, organization, and departmental affiliation. Specify the role of each participant (i.e. PI, Co-PI, Senior/Key Personnel, Other Personnel; etc.) in the list.
List of all organizations and companies involved in the project (including location). Specify the role of the organization (i.e., lead, non-lead, subawardee, etc.) in the list.
Up to a maximum of five Letters of Collaboration of two pages or less from other partners or jurisdictional officials may be included to support commitment that will be relied upon beyond the collaboration among the core partners.
Cost Sharing:
Inclusion of voluntary committed cost sharing is prohibited.
Other Budgetary Limitations:
Funding requests can be for durations of up to 4 years. The maximum allowed RII-FEC award amount depends on the number of participating EPSCoR jurisdictions. If organizations from two eligible EPSCoR jurisdictions collaborate on a proposal, the total award amount may not exceed $4 million for up to 4 years. If organizations from three or more eligible EPSCoR jurisdictions collaborate on a proposal, the total award amount may not exceed $6 million for up to 4 years.
Budgets should include sufficient funding for participation in annual jurisdictional and regional EPSCoR conferences, the annual EPSCoR PI/PD meeting, the EPSCoR National Conference, and for one RII-FEC kickoff meeting for all PIs and all co-PIs at the NSF Headquarters in Year 1 only.
RII-FEC projects are expected to host or facilitate project-wide meetings (virtual, hybrid, and/or in-person) such as EPSCoR all-hands workshops and/or science symposia which include support for student (undergraduate and graduate as appropriate) participants of the RII-FEC project.
If the proposal is being submitted as a "Submission of a collaborative proposal from one organization," budgets for participating organizations must be included as subawards to the budget of the submitting organization. Only the budget of the submitting organization (lead) may include subawards (i.e., no subawards may appear in the budgets of subawardee organizations). Each subaward must include a separate budget justification of no more than five pages.
If the proposal is being submitted as a "Submission of a collaborative proposal from multiple organizations," follow the instructions in PAPPG Chapter II.E.3 regarding budget submissions.
Organizations or institutions submitting proposal budgets with Subawards must be able to verify that the lead organization has established a system to monitor the subawards issued on Federally-sponsored projects and that appropriate agreements are in place with sub-recipients.
Subawards to organizations in non-EPSCoR jurisdictions are not allowed.
Financial compensation for any independent evaluator(s) involved in the project must be included in the budget of the submitting organization under Consultant Services. No other form of financial compensation for external evaluation services is allowed.
Proposal budgets must comply with the guidance in 2 CFR 200 and the current PAPPG. Proposing entities are cautioned to ensure that all costs proposed are allowable (allocable, reasonable, and necessary), especially those costs associated with Participant Support. Costs typically considered to be for entertainment, incentive, or promotional purposes should be sufficiently detailed in the budget justification to support the programmatic relevance and need. In general, costs for entertainment, amusement, and advertising/promotional purposes are unallowable and may not be requested. However, among EPSCoR's programmatic goals are emphasis on establishing STEM development pathways and broadening participation of diverse groups in STEM, which can include "Bridge" programs designed to prepare high school students for the transition to college. This may include entertainment, amusement, and/or promotional costs related to STEM enrichment activities covering a range of possible career paths or activities focusing on cohort-building and maintaining a healthy work-life balance. These categories of activities are consistent with the overall program goal of preparing students for the difficult high school to college transition. This may include residential programs for minor students whose supervisory requirements may require different choices than would be appropriate for adult students. When costs typically considered as entertainment, amusement, and promotion are necessary to accomplish the proposed objectives, they must be included in the budget and justified in the budget justification.
Proposals with budgets that depart from these instructions will be considered not responsive and may be returned without review.
D. Research.gov/Grants.gov Requirements
For Proposals Submitted Via Research.gov:
To prepare and submit a proposal via Research.gov, see detailed technical instructions available at: https://www.research.gov/research-portal/appmanager/base/desktop?_nfpb=true&_pageLabel=research_node_display&_nodePath=/researchGov/Service/Desktop/ProposalPreparationandSubmission.html . For Research.gov user support, call the Research.gov Help Desk at 1-800-381-1532 or e-mail [email protected] . The Research.gov Help Desk answers general technical questions related to the use of the Research.gov system. Specific questions related to this program solicitation should be referred to the NSF program staff contact(s) listed in Section VIII of this funding opportunity.
For Proposals Submitted Via Grants.gov:
Before using Grants.gov for the first time, each organization must register to create an institutional profile. Once registered, the applicant's organization can then apply for any federal grant on the Grants.gov website. Comprehensive information about using Grants.gov is available on the Grants.gov Applicant Resources webpage: https://www.grants.gov/applicants . In addition, the NSF Grants.gov Application Guide (see link in Section V.A) provides instructions regarding the technical preparation of proposals via Grants.gov. For Grants.gov user support, contact the Grants.gov Contact Center at 1-800-518-4726 or by email: [email protected] . The Grants.gov Contact Center answers general technical questions related to the use of Grants.gov. Specific questions related to this program solicitation should be referred to the NSF program staff contact(s) listed in Section VIII of this solicitation. Submitting the Proposal: Once all documents have been completed, the Authorized Organizational Representative (AOR) must submit the application to Grants.gov and verify the desired funding opportunity and agency to which the application is submitted. The AOR must then sign and submit the application to Grants.gov. The completed application will be transferred to Research.gov for further processing. The NSF Grants.gov Proposal Processing in Research.gov informational page provides submission guidance to applicants and links to helpful resources including the NSF Grants.gov Application Guide , Grants.gov Proposal Processing in Research.gov how-to guide , and Grants.gov Submitted Proposals Frequently Asked Questions . Grants.gov proposals must pass all NSF pre-check and post-check validations in order to be accepted by Research.gov at NSF. When submitting via Grants.gov, NSF strongly recommends applicants initiate proposal submission at least five business days in advance of a deadline to allow adequate time to address NSF compliance errors and resubmissions by 5:00 p.m. submitting organization's local time on the deadline. Please note that some errors cannot be corrected in Grants.gov. Once a proposal passes pre-checks but fails any post-check, an applicant can only correct and submit the in-progress proposal in Research.gov.
Proposers that submitted via Research.gov may use Research.gov to verify the status of their submission to NSF. For proposers that submitted via Grants.gov, until an application has been received and validated by NSF, the Authorized Organizational Representative may check the status of an application on Grants.gov. After proposers have received an e-mail notification from NSF, Research.gov should be used to check the status of an application.
VI. NSF Proposal Processing And Review Procedures
Proposals received by NSF are assigned to the appropriate NSF program for acknowledgement and, if they meet NSF requirements, for review. All proposals are carefully reviewed by a scientist, engineer, or educator serving as an NSF Program Officer, and usually by three to ten other persons outside NSF either as ad hoc reviewers, panelists, or both, who are experts in the particular fields represented by the proposal. These reviewers are selected by Program Officers charged with oversight of the review process. Proposers are invited to suggest names of persons they believe are especially well qualified to review the proposal and/or persons they would prefer not review the proposal. These suggestions may serve as one source in the reviewer selection process at the Program Officer's discretion. Submission of such names, however, is optional. Care is taken to ensure that reviewers have no conflicts of interest with the proposal. In addition, Program Officers may obtain comments from site visits before recommending final action on proposals. Senior NSF staff further review recommendations for awards. A flowchart that depicts the entire NSF proposal and award process (and associated timeline) is included in PAPPG Exhibit III-1.
A comprehensive description of the Foundation's merit review process is available on the NSF website at: https://www.nsf.gov/bfa/dias/policy/merit_review/ .
Proposers should also be aware of core strategies that are essential to the fulfillment of NSF's mission, as articulated in Leading the World in Discovery and Innovation, STEM Talent Development and the Delivery of Benefits from Research - NSF Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years (FY) 2022 - 2026 . These strategies are integrated in the program planning and implementation process, of which proposal review is one part. NSF's mission is particularly well-implemented through the integration of research and education and broadening participation in NSF programs, projects, and activities.
One of the strategic objectives in support of NSF's mission is to foster integration of research and education through the programs, projects, and activities it supports at academic and research institutions. These institutions must recruit, train, and prepare a diverse STEM workforce to advance the frontiers of science and participate in the U.S. technology-based economy. NSF's contribution to the national innovation ecosystem is to provide cutting-edge research under the guidance of the Nation's most creative scientists and engineers. NSF also supports development of a strong science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) workforce by investing in building the knowledge that informs improvements in STEM teaching and learning.
NSF's mission calls for the broadening of opportunities and expanding participation of groups, institutions, and geographic regions that are underrepresented in STEM disciplines, which is essential to the health and vitality of science and engineering. NSF is committed to this principle of diversity and deems it central to the programs, projects, and activities it considers and supports.
A. Merit Review Principles and Criteria
The National Science Foundation strives to invest in a robust and diverse portfolio of projects that creates new knowledge and enables breakthroughs in understanding across all areas of science and engineering research and education. To identify which projects to support, NSF relies on a merit review process that incorporates consideration of both the technical aspects of a proposed project and its potential to contribute more broadly to advancing NSF's mission "to promote the progress of science; to advance the national health, prosperity, and welfare; to secure the national defense; and for other purposes." NSF makes every effort to conduct a fair, competitive, transparent merit review process for the selection of projects.
1. Merit Review Principles
These principles are to be given due diligence by PIs and organizations when preparing proposals and managing projects, by reviewers when reading and evaluating proposals, and by NSF program staff when determining whether or not to recommend proposals for funding and while overseeing awards. Given that NSF is the primary federal agency charged with nurturing and supporting excellence in basic research and education, the following three principles apply:
All NSF projects should be of the highest quality and have the potential to advance, if not transform, the frontiers of knowledge.
NSF projects, in the aggregate, should contribute more broadly to achieving societal goals. These "Broader Impacts" may be accomplished through the research itself, through activities that are directly related to specific research projects, or through activities that are supported by, but are complementary to, the project. The project activities may be based on previously established and/or innovative methods and approaches, but in either case must be well justified.
Meaningful assessment and evaluation of NSF funded projects should be based on appropriate metrics, keeping in mind the likely correlation between the effect of broader impacts and the resources provided to implement projects. If the size of the activity is limited, evaluation of that activity in isolation is not likely to be meaningful. Thus, assessing the effectiveness of these activities may best be done at a higher, more aggregated, level than the individual project.
With respect to the third principle, even if assessment of Broader Impacts outcomes for particular projects is done at an aggregated level, PIs are expected to be accountable for carrying out the activities described in the funded project. Thus, individual projects should include clearly stated goals, specific descriptions of the activities that the PI intends to do, and a plan in place to document the outputs of those activities.
These three merit review principles provide the basis for the merit review criteria, as well as a context within which the users of the criteria can better understand their intent.
2. Merit Review Criteria
All NSF proposals are evaluated through use of the two National Science Board approved merit review criteria. In some instances, however, NSF will employ additional criteria as required to highlight the specific objectives of certain programs and activities.
The two merit review criteria are listed below. Both criteria are to be given full consideration during the review and decision-making processes; each criterion is necessary but neither, by itself, is sufficient. Therefore, proposers must fully address both criteria. (PAPPG Chapter II.D.2.d(i). contains additional information for use by proposers in development of the Project Description section of the proposal). Reviewers are strongly encouraged to review the criteria, including PAPPG Chapter II.D.2.d(i), prior to the review of a proposal.
When evaluating NSF proposals, reviewers will be asked to consider what the proposers want to do, why they want to do it, how they plan to do it, how they will know if they succeed, and what benefits could accrue if the project is successful. These issues apply both to the technical aspects of the proposal and the way in which the project may make broader contributions. To that end, reviewers will be asked to evaluate all proposals against two criteria:
Intellectual Merit: The Intellectual Merit criterion encompasses the potential to advance knowledge; and
Broader Impacts: The Broader Impacts criterion encompasses the potential to benefit society and contribute to the achievement of specific, desired societal outcomes.
The following elements should be considered in the review for both criteria:
Advance knowledge and understanding within its own field or across different fields (Intellectual Merit); and
Benefit society or advance desired societal outcomes (Broader Impacts)?
To what extent do the proposed activities suggest and explore creative, original, or potentially transformative concepts?
Is the plan for carrying out the proposed activities well-reasoned, well-organized, and based on a sound rationale? Does the plan incorporate a mechanism to assess success?
How well qualified is the individual, team, or organization to conduct the proposed activities?
Are there adequate resources available to the PI (either at the home organization or through collaborations) to carry out the proposed activities?
Broader impacts may be accomplished through the research itself, through the activities that are directly related to specific research projects, or through activities that are supported by, but are complementary to, the project. NSF values the advancement of scientific knowledge and activities that contribute to achievement of societally relevant outcomes. Such outcomes include, but are not limited to: full participation of women, persons with disabilities, and other underrepresented groups in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM); improved STEM education and educator development at any level; increased public scientific literacy and public engagement with science and technology; improved well-being of individuals in society; development of a diverse, globally competitive STEM workforce; increased partnerships between academia, industry, and others; improved national security; increased economic competitiveness of the United States; and enhanced infrastructure for research and education.
Proposers are reminded that reviewers will also be asked to review the Data Management and Sharing Plan and the Mentoring Plan, as appropriate.
Additional Solicitation Specific Review Criteria
Reviewers for the FEC competition will also consider the following specific review criteria:
Research Capacity – What is the potential impact of the project on enhancing STEM research competitiveness and developing STEM research capacity and infrastructure in the jurisdictions (including physical, cyber, and human resources)?
Workforce Development – How will the recruitment and development of early-career faculty and postdoctoral, graduate, and undergraduate trainees contribute to the preparation of a full spectrum of diverse, new cadre of skilled researchers, innovators, and educators able to work across boundaries and interface with stakeholders in areas associated with the project focus?
Inter-jurisdictional Collaboration – Is there a balanced, sustainable, collaborative effort of activities such that each jurisdiction is contributing to and benefiting from the project at an appropriate level?
Integration of Project Elements – How well developed is the integration of, and synergy between, the research, education, workforce development, sustainability, project coordination, and evaluation elements of the project?
B. Review and Selection Process
Proposals submitted in response to this program solicitation will be reviewed by Ad hoc Review and/or Panel Review.
Reviewers will be asked to evaluate proposals using two National Science Board approved merit review criteria and, if applicable, additional program specific criteria. A summary rating and accompanying narrative will generally be completed and submitted by each reviewer and/or panel. The Program Officer assigned to manage the proposal's review will consider the advice of reviewers and will formulate a recommendation.
After scientific, technical and programmatic review and consideration of appropriate factors, the NSF Program Officer recommends to the cognizant Division Director whether the proposal should be declined or recommended for award. NSF strives to be able to tell proposers whether their proposals have been declined or recommended for funding within six months. Large or particularly complex proposals or proposals from new recipients may require additional review and processing time. The time interval begins on the deadline or target date, or receipt date, whichever is later. The interval ends when the Division Director acts upon the Program Officer's recommendation.
After programmatic approval has been obtained, the proposals recommended for funding will be forwarded to the Division of Grants and Agreements or the Division of Acquisition and Cooperative Support for review of business, financial, and policy implications. After an administrative review has occurred, Grants and Agreements Officers perform the processing and issuance of a grant or other agreement. Proposers are cautioned that only a Grants and Agreements Officer may make commitments, obligations or awards on behalf of NSF or authorize the expenditure of funds. No commitment on the part of NSF should be inferred from technical or budgetary discussions with a NSF Program Officer. A Principal Investigator or organization that makes financial or personnel commitments in the absence of a grant or cooperative agreement signed by the NSF Grants and Agreements Officer does so at their own risk.
Once an award or declination decision has been made, Principal Investigators are provided feedback about their proposals. In all cases, reviews are treated as confidential documents. Verbatim copies of reviews, excluding the names of the reviewers or any reviewer-identifying information, are sent to the Principal Investigator/Project Director by the Program Officer. In addition, the proposer will receive an explanation of the decision to award or decline funding.
VII. Award Administration Information
A. notification of the award.
Notification of the award is made to the submitting organization by an NSF Grants and Agreements Officer. Organizations whose proposals are declined will be advised as promptly as possible by the cognizant NSF Program administering the program. Verbatim copies of reviews, not including the identity of the reviewer, will be provided automatically to the Principal Investigator. (See Section VI.B. for additional information on the review process.)
B. Award Conditions
An NSF award consists of: (1) the award notice, which includes any special provisions applicable to the award and any numbered amendments thereto; (2) the budget, which indicates the amounts, by categories of expense, on which NSF has based its support (or otherwise communicates any specific approvals or disapprovals of proposed expenditures); (3) the proposal referenced in the award notice; (4) the applicable award conditions, such as Grant General Conditions (GC-1)*; or Research Terms and Conditions* and (5) any announcement or other NSF issuance that may be incorporated by reference in the award notice. Cooperative agreements also are administered in accordance with NSF Cooperative Agreement Financial and Administrative Terms and Conditions (CA-FATC) and the applicable Programmatic Terms and Conditions. NSF awards are electronically signed by an NSF Grants and Agreements Officer and transmitted electronically to the organization via e-mail.
*These documents may be accessed electronically on NSF's Website at https://www.nsf.gov/awards/managing/award_conditions.jsp?org=NSF . Paper copies may be obtained from the NSF Publications Clearinghouse, telephone (703) 292-8134 or by e-mail from [email protected] .
More comprehensive information on NSF Award Conditions and other important information on the administration of NSF awards is contained in the NSF Proposal & Award Policies & Procedures Guide (PAPPG) Chapter VII, available electronically on the NSF Website at https://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=pappg .
Administrative and National Policy Requirements
Build America, Buy America
As expressed in Executive Order 14005, Ensuring the Future is Made in All of America by All of America’s Workers (86 FR 7475), it is the policy of the executive branch to use terms and conditions of Federal financial assistance awards to maximize, consistent with law, the use of goods, products, and materials produced in, and services offered in, the United States.
Consistent with the requirements of the Build America, Buy America Act (Pub. L. 117-58, Division G, Title IX, Subtitle A, November 15, 2021), no funding made available through this funding opportunity may be obligated for an award unless all iron, steel, manufactured products, and construction materials used in the project are produced in the United States. For additional information, visit NSF's Build America, Buy America webpage.
TBD - Programmatic Terms and Conditions:
Programmatic Terms and Conditions, if applicable, are outcomes of the proposal specific merit review process.
TBD - Financial and Administrative Terms and Conditions:
EPSCoR funds must be expended within EPSCoR jurisdictions.
C. Reporting Requirements
For all multi-year grants (including both standard and continuing grants), the Principal Investigator must submit an annual project report to the cognizant Program Officer no later than 90 days prior to the end of the current budget period. (Some programs or awards require submission of more frequent project reports). No later than 120 days following expiration of a grant, the PI also is required to submit a final annual project report, and a project outcomes report for the general public.
Failure to provide the required annual or final annual project reports, or the project outcomes report, will delay NSF review and processing of any future funding increments as well as any pending proposals for all identified PIs and co-PIs on a given award. PIs should examine the formats of the required reports in advance to assure availability of required data.
PIs are required to use NSF's electronic project-reporting system, available through Research.gov, for preparation and submission of annual and final annual project reports. Such reports provide information on accomplishments, project participants (individual and organizational), publications, and other specific products and impacts of the project. Submission of the report via Research.gov constitutes certification by the PI that the contents of the report are accurate and complete. The project outcomes report also must be prepared and submitted using Research.gov. This report serves as a brief summary, prepared specifically for the public, of the nature and outcomes of the project. This report will be posted on the NSF website exactly as it is submitted by the PI.
More comprehensive information on NSF Reporting Requirements and other important information on the administration of NSF awards is contained in the NSF Proposal & Award Policies & Procedures Guide (PAPPG) Chapter VII, available electronically on the NSF Website at https://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=pappg .
The annual and final annual project reports must include identification of numbers of women and members of other underrepresented groups in faculty and staff positions and as participants in the activities funded by the award.
VIII. Agency Contacts
Please note that the program contact information is current at the time of publishing. See program website for any updates to the points of contact.
General inquiries regarding this program should be made to:
For questions related to the use of NSF systems contact:
Grants.gov Contact Center: If the Authorized Organizational Representatives (AOR) has not received a confirmation message from Grants.gov within 48 hours of submission of application, please contact via telephone: 1-800-518-4726; e-mail: [email protected] .
IX. Other Information
The NSF website provides the most comprehensive source of information on NSF Directorates (including contact information), programs and funding opportunities. Use of this website by potential proposers is strongly encouraged. In addition, "NSF Update" is an information-delivery system designed to keep potential proposers and other interested parties apprised of new NSF funding opportunities and publications, important changes in proposal and award policies and procedures, and upcoming NSF Grants Conferences . Subscribers are informed through e-mail or the user's Web browser each time new publications are issued that match their identified interests. "NSF Update" also is available on NSF's website .
Grants.gov provides an additional electronic capability to search for Federal government-wide grant opportunities. NSF funding opportunities may be accessed via this mechanism. Further information on Grants.gov may be obtained at https://www.grants.gov .
About The National Science Foundation
The National Science Foundation (NSF) is an independent Federal agency created by the National Science Foundation Act of 1950, as amended (42 USC 1861-75). The Act states the purpose of the NSF is "to promote the progress of science; [and] to advance the national health, prosperity, and welfare by supporting research and education in all fields of science and engineering."
NSF funds research and education in most fields of science and engineering. It does this through grants and cooperative agreements to more than 2,000 colleges, universities, K-12 school systems, businesses, informal science organizations and other research organizations throughout the US. The Foundation accounts for about one-fourth of Federal support to academic institutions for basic research.
NSF receives approximately 55,000 proposals each year for research, education and training projects, of which approximately 11,000 are funded. In addition, the Foundation receives several thousand applications for graduate and postdoctoral fellowships. The agency operates no laboratories itself but does support National Research Centers, user facilities, certain oceanographic vessels and Arctic and Antarctic research stations. The Foundation also supports cooperative research between universities and industry, US participation in international scientific and engineering efforts, and educational activities at every academic level.
Facilitation Awards for Scientists and Engineers with Disabilities (FASED) provide funding for special assistance or equipment to enable persons with disabilities to work on NSF-supported projects. See the NSF Proposal & Award Policies & Procedures Guide Chapter II.F.7 for instructions regarding preparation of these types of proposals.
The National Science Foundation has Telephonic Device for the Deaf (TDD) and Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) capabilities that enable individuals with hearing impairments to communicate with the Foundation about NSF programs, employment or general information. TDD may be accessed at (703) 292-5090 and (800) 281-8749, FIRS at (800) 877-8339.
The National Science Foundation Information Center may be reached at (703) 292-5111.
The National Science Foundation promotes and advances scientific progress in the United States by competitively awarding grants and cooperative agreements for research and education in the sciences, mathematics, and engineering.
To get the latest information about program deadlines, to download copies of NSF publications, and to access abstracts of awards, visit the NSF Website at
2415 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, VA 22314
(NSF Information Center)
(703) 292-5111
(703) 292-5090
Send an e-mail to:
or telephone:
(703) 292-8134
(703) 292-5111
Privacy Act And Public Burden Statements
The information requested on proposal forms and project reports is solicited under the authority of the National Science Foundation Act of 1950, as amended. The information on proposal forms will be used in connection with the selection of qualified proposals; and project reports submitted by proposers will be used for program evaluation and reporting within the Executive Branch and to Congress. The information requested may be disclosed to qualified reviewers and staff assistants as part of the proposal review process; to proposer institutions/grantees to provide or obtain data regarding the proposal review process, award decisions, or the administration of awards; to government contractors, experts, volunteers and researchers and educators as necessary to complete assigned work; to other government agencies or other entities needing information regarding proposers or nominees as part of a joint application review process, or in order to coordinate programs or policy; and to another Federal agency, court, or party in a court or Federal administrative proceeding if the government is a party. Information about Principal Investigators may be added to the Reviewer file and used to select potential candidates to serve as peer reviewers or advisory committee members. See System of Record Notices , NSF-50 , "Principal Investigator/Proposal File and Associated Records," and NSF-51 , "Reviewer/Proposal File and Associated Records." Submission of the information is voluntary. Failure to provide full and complete information, however, may reduce the possibility of receiving an award.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, an information collection unless it displays a valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. The OMB control number for this collection is 3145-0058. Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 120 hours per response, including the time for reviewing instructions. Send comments regarding the burden estimate and any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to:
Suzanne H. Plimpton Reports Clearance Officer Policy Office, Division of Institution and Award Support Office of Budget, Finance, and Award Management National Science Foundation Alexandria, VA 22314
(PDF) HOW TO WRITE A LITERATURE REVIEW IN A PROPOSAL ...
This presentation is to help students address problems of presentation of their literature review sections in their proposals and thesis. Content may be subject to copyright. 1. Introduction ...
Writing a Literature Review
Writing a Literature Review - Purdue OWL
5. The Literature Review
5. The Literature Review - Organizing Your Social Sciences ...
PDF Writing an Effective Literature Review
at each of these in turn.IntroductionThe first part of any literature review is a way of inviting your read. into the topic and orientating them. A good introduction tells the reader what the review is about - its s. pe—and what you are going to cover. It may also specifically tell you.
Literature Review Example (PDF + Template)
Literature Review Example (PDF + Template)
What is a Literature Review?
What is a Literature Review? | Guide, Template, & Examples
How To Structure A Literature Review (Free Template)
How To Structure A Literature Review (Free Template)
Writing an effective literature review
Mapping the gap. The purpose of the literature review section of a manuscript is not to report what is known about your topic. The purpose is to identify what remains unknown—what academic writing scholar Janet Giltrow has called the 'knowledge deficit'—thus establishing the need for your research study [].In an earlier Writer's Craft instalment, the Problem-Gap-Hook heuristic was ...
How To Write A Literature Review
1. Outline and identify the purpose of a literature review. As a first step on how to write a literature review, you must know what the research question or topic is and what shape you want your literature review to take. Ensure you understand the research topic inside out, or else seek clarifications.
How to Write a Literature Review
How to Write a Literature Review - LibGuides
Learn how to write a review of literature
Learn how to write a review of literature - The Writing Center
What Is A Literature Review (In A Dissertation Or Thesis ...
What Is A Literature Review (In A Dissertation Or Thesis)
Approaching literature review for academic purposes: The Literature
Approaching literature review for academic purposes
Steps in Conducting a Literature Review
A literature review is important because it: Explains the background of research on a topic. Demonstrates why a topic is significant to a subject area. Discovers relationships between research studies/ideas. Identifies major themes, concepts, and researchers on a topic. Identifies critical gaps and points of disagreement.
Writing a Literature Review Research Paper: A step-by-step approach
(PDF) Writing a Literature Review Research Paper: A step- ...
Research Guides: Literature Reviews: Writing a Proposal
Writing a Proposal - Literature Reviews
Literature Review in Research Proposal: A Comprehensive Guide
Subheading 2, "Defining the Research Problem: Using Literature Review to Identify Gaps in Knowledge," is an important subheading in the literature review section of a research proposal. A literature review is an essential part of any research project as it provides a comprehensive overview of the existing body of knowledge on a specific ...
Writing a Research Proposal @ Pitt: Literature Review
A thorough review of the relevant literature is an important part of your preparation for writing a proposal. It plays several critical roles. Don't reinvent the wheel. You won't get credit for proposing work that has already been reported. Develop the context of your research. Show how your work grows from or relates to work that has already ...
Writing the literature Review for a research proposal
This video is for Doctoral and Master's thesis writers and covers how to write the literature review section of a research proposal. This is part of our ser...
Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines
Literature review as a research methodology: An overview ...
How to write a research proposal
A literature review is a discussion and evaluation of academic literature or a relevant body of knowledge (for practice-based research). You should use this section of your proposal to show that you are familiar with work in your chosen topic area and that your research will contribute something new and/or meaningful to it.
Preparing a preliminary literature review
The literature review can be organized by categories or in the order of your research questions/hypotheses. While you have been including literature reviews in your research papers and collecting citations for your dissertation, the literature review for a grant proposal is shorter and includes only those studies that are essential in showing ...
How to Prepare a Research Proposal and Literature Review
Your research proposal and literature review should be a comprehensive outline of your research topic and show how you will make an original contribution to knowledge in your field. Your Review panel will use your research proposal and literature review to assess the viability of your research project, and to provide you with valuable feedback ...
How to write a research proposal
How to write a research proposal | 301
Dear Colleague Letter: NSF and the Romanian Executive Agency for Higher
Proposals that request duplicative funding from NSF and/or UEFISCDI may be returned without review. MERIT REVIEW. NSF-UEFISCDI collaborative proposals will be reviewed alongside all other unsolicited or standard research grant proposals received in the same funding round or call and will not undergo a special or separate review process.
NSF 23-596: Discovery Research PreK-12 (DRK-12)
Synthesis studies may be in the form of a literature review, qualitative or mixed methods meta-synthesis and/or meta-analysis. Proposals should demonstrate a command of the breadth and depth of the literature on the question, issue, or topic. ... In addition to original research proposals, DRK12 also welcomes and supports proposals that involve ...
NSF 24-573: EPSCoR Research Infrastructure Improvement-Focused EPSCoR
The information requested may be disclosed to qualified reviewers and staff assistants as part of the proposal review process; to proposer institutions/grantees to provide or obtain data regarding the proposal review process, award decisions, or the administration of awards; to government contractors, experts, volunteers and researchers and ...
COMMENTS
This presentation is to help students address problems of presentation of their literature review sections in their proposals and thesis. Content may be subject to copyright. 1. Introduction ...
Writing a Literature Review - Purdue OWL
5. The Literature Review - Organizing Your Social Sciences ...
at each of these in turn.IntroductionThe first part of any literature review is a way of inviting your read. into the topic and orientating them. A good introduction tells the reader what the review is about - its s. pe—and what you are going to cover. It may also specifically tell you.
Literature Review Example (PDF + Template)
What is a Literature Review? | Guide, Template, & Examples
How To Structure A Literature Review (Free Template)
Mapping the gap. The purpose of the literature review section of a manuscript is not to report what is known about your topic. The purpose is to identify what remains unknown—what academic writing scholar Janet Giltrow has called the 'knowledge deficit'—thus establishing the need for your research study [].In an earlier Writer's Craft instalment, the Problem-Gap-Hook heuristic was ...
1. Outline and identify the purpose of a literature review. As a first step on how to write a literature review, you must know what the research question or topic is and what shape you want your literature review to take. Ensure you understand the research topic inside out, or else seek clarifications.
How to Write a Literature Review - LibGuides
Learn how to write a review of literature - The Writing Center
What Is A Literature Review (In A Dissertation Or Thesis)
Approaching literature review for academic purposes
A literature review is important because it: Explains the background of research on a topic. Demonstrates why a topic is significant to a subject area. Discovers relationships between research studies/ideas. Identifies major themes, concepts, and researchers on a topic. Identifies critical gaps and points of disagreement.
(PDF) Writing a Literature Review Research Paper: A step- ...
Writing a Proposal - Literature Reviews
Subheading 2, "Defining the Research Problem: Using Literature Review to Identify Gaps in Knowledge," is an important subheading in the literature review section of a research proposal. A literature review is an essential part of any research project as it provides a comprehensive overview of the existing body of knowledge on a specific ...
A thorough review of the relevant literature is an important part of your preparation for writing a proposal. It plays several critical roles. Don't reinvent the wheel. You won't get credit for proposing work that has already been reported. Develop the context of your research. Show how your work grows from or relates to work that has already ...
This video is for Doctoral and Master's thesis writers and covers how to write the literature review section of a research proposal. This is part of our ser...
Literature review as a research methodology: An overview ...
A literature review is a discussion and evaluation of academic literature or a relevant body of knowledge (for practice-based research). You should use this section of your proposal to show that you are familiar with work in your chosen topic area and that your research will contribute something new and/or meaningful to it.
The literature review can be organized by categories or in the order of your research questions/hypotheses. While you have been including literature reviews in your research papers and collecting citations for your dissertation, the literature review for a grant proposal is shorter and includes only those studies that are essential in showing ...
Your research proposal and literature review should be a comprehensive outline of your research topic and show how you will make an original contribution to knowledge in your field. Your Review panel will use your research proposal and literature review to assess the viability of your research project, and to provide you with valuable feedback ...
How to write a research proposal | 301
Proposals that request duplicative funding from NSF and/or UEFISCDI may be returned without review. MERIT REVIEW. NSF-UEFISCDI collaborative proposals will be reviewed alongside all other unsolicited or standard research grant proposals received in the same funding round or call and will not undergo a special or separate review process.
Synthesis studies may be in the form of a literature review, qualitative or mixed methods meta-synthesis and/or meta-analysis. Proposals should demonstrate a command of the breadth and depth of the literature on the question, issue, or topic. ... In addition to original research proposals, DRK12 also welcomes and supports proposals that involve ...
The information requested may be disclosed to qualified reviewers and staff assistants as part of the proposal review process; to proposer institutions/grantees to provide or obtain data regarding the proposal review process, award decisions, or the administration of awards; to government contractors, experts, volunteers and researchers and ...