research method in literature

Methodological Approaches to Literature Review

• Living reference work entry
• First Online: 09 May 2023
• Cite this living reference work entry

• Dennis Thomas 2 ,
• Elida Zairina 3 &
• Johnson George 4  

577 Accesses

1 Citations

The literature review can serve various functions in the contexts of education and research. It aids in identifying knowledge gaps, informing research methodology, and developing a theoretical framework during the planning stages of a research study or project, as well as reporting of review findings in the context of the existing literature. This chapter discusses the methodological approaches to conducting a literature review and offers an overview of different types of reviews. There are various types of reviews, including narrative reviews, scoping reviews, and systematic reviews with reporting strategies such as meta-analysis and meta-synthesis. Review authors should consider the scope of the literature review when selecting a type and method. Being focused is essential for a successful review; however, this must be balanced against the relevance of the review to a broad audience.

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

Access this chapter

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Reviewing Literature for and as Research

Discussion and Conclusion

Systematic Reviews in Educational Research: Methodology, Perspectives and Application

Akobeng AK. Principles of evidence based medicine. Arch Dis Child. 2005;90(8):837–40.

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Alharbi A, Stevenson M. Refining Boolean queries to identify relevant studies for systematic review updates. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2020;27(11):1658–66.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Arksey H, O’Malley L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2005;8(1):19–32.

Article   Google Scholar  

Aromataris E MZE. JBI manual for evidence synthesis. 2020.

Google Scholar  

Aromataris E, Pearson A. The systematic review: an overview. Am J Nurs. 2014;114(3):53–8.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Aromataris E, Riitano D. Constructing a search strategy and searching for evidence. A guide to the literature search for a systematic review. Am J Nurs. 2014;114(5):49–56.

Babineau J. Product review: covidence (systematic review software). J Canad Health Libr Assoc Canada. 2014;35(2):68–71.

Baker JD. The purpose, process, and methods of writing a literature review. AORN J. 2016;103(3):265–9.

Bastian H, Glasziou P, Chalmers I. Seventy-five trials and eleven systematic reviews a day: how will we ever keep up? PLoS Med. 2010;7(9):e1000326.

Bramer WM, Rethlefsen ML, Kleijnen J, Franco OH. Optimal database combinations for literature searches in systematic reviews: a prospective exploratory study. Syst Rev. 2017;6(1):1–12.

Brown D. A review of the PubMed PICO tool: using evidence-based practice in health education. Health Promot Pract. 2020;21(4):496–8.

Cargo M, Harris J, Pantoja T, et al. Cochrane qualitative and implementation methods group guidance series – paper 4: methods for assessing evidence on intervention implementation. J Clin Epidemiol. 2018;97:59–69.

Cook DJ, Mulrow CD, Haynes RB. Systematic reviews: synthesis of best evidence for clinical decisions. Ann Intern Med. 1997;126(5):376–80.

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Counsell C. Formulating questions and locating primary studies for inclusion in systematic reviews. Ann Intern Med. 1997;127(5):380–7.

Cummings SR, Browner WS, Hulley SB. Conceiving the research question and developing the study plan. In: Cummings SR, Browner WS, Hulley SB, editors. Designing Clinical Research: An Epidemiological Approach. 4th ed. Philadelphia (PA): P Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2007. p. 14–22.

Eriksen MB, Frandsen TF. The impact of patient, intervention, comparison, outcome (PICO) as a search strategy tool on literature search quality: a systematic review. JMLA. 2018;106(4):420.

Ferrari R. Writing narrative style literature reviews. Medical Writing. 2015;24(4):230–5.

Flemming K, Booth A, Hannes K, Cargo M, Noyes J. Cochrane qualitative and implementation methods group guidance series – paper 6: reporting guidelines for qualitative, implementation, and process evaluation evidence syntheses. J Clin Epidemiol. 2018;97:79–85.

Grant MJ, Booth A. A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Inf Libr J. 2009;26(2):91–108.

Green BN, Johnson CD, Adams A. Writing narrative literature reviews for peer-reviewed journals: secrets of the trade. J Chiropr Med. 2006;5(3):101–17.

Gregory AT, Denniss AR. An introduction to writing narrative and systematic reviews; tasks, tips and traps for aspiring authors. Heart Lung Circ. 2018;27(7):893–8.

Harden A, Thomas J, Cargo M, et al. Cochrane qualitative and implementation methods group guidance series – paper 5: methods for integrating qualitative and implementation evidence within intervention effectiveness reviews. J Clin Epidemiol. 2018;97:70–8.

Harris JL, Booth A, Cargo M, et al. Cochrane qualitative and implementation methods group guidance series – paper 2: methods for question formulation, searching, and protocol development for qualitative evidence synthesis. J Clin Epidemiol. 2018;97:39–48.

Higgins J, Thomas J. In: Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, Welch VA, editors. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 6.3, updated February 2022). Available from www.training.cochrane.org/handbook.: Cochrane; 2022.

International prospective register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO). Available from https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/ .

Khan KS, Kunz R, Kleijnen J, Antes G. Five steps to conducting a systematic review. J R Soc Med. 2003;96(3):118–21.

Landhuis E. Scientific literature: information overload. Nature. 2016;535(7612):457–8.

Lockwood C, Porritt K, Munn Z, Rittenmeyer L, Salmond S, Bjerrum M, Loveday H, Carrier J, Stannard D. Chapter 2: Systematic reviews of qualitative evidence. In: Aromataris E, Munn Z, editors. JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis. JBI; 2020. Available from https://synthesismanual.jbi.global . https://doi.org/10.46658/JBIMES-20-03 .

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Lorenzetti DL, Topfer L-A, Dennett L, Clement F. Value of databases other than medline for rapid health technology assessments. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2014;30(2):173–8.

Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, the PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for (SR) and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Ann Intern Med. 2009;6:264–9.

Mulrow CD. Systematic reviews: rationale for systematic reviews. BMJ. 1994;309(6954):597–9.

Munn Z, Peters MDJ, Stern C, Tufanaru C, McArthur A, Aromataris E. Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2018;18(1):143.

Munthe-Kaas HM, Glenton C, Booth A, Noyes J, Lewin S. Systematic mapping of existing tools to appraise methodological strengths and limitations of qualitative research: first stage in the development of the CAMELOT tool. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2019;19(1):1–13.

Murphy CM. Writing an effective review article. J Med Toxicol. 2012;8(2):89–90.

NHMRC. Guidelines for guidelines: assessing risk of bias. Available at https://nhmrc.gov.au/guidelinesforguidelines/develop/assessing-risk-bias . Last published 29 August 2019. Accessed 29 Aug 2022.

Noyes J, Booth A, Cargo M, et al. Cochrane qualitative and implementation methods group guidance series – paper 1: introduction. J Clin Epidemiol. 2018b;97:35–8.

Noyes J, Booth A, Flemming K, et al. Cochrane qualitative and implementation methods group guidance series – paper 3: methods for assessing methodological limitations, data extraction and synthesis, and confidence in synthesized qualitative findings. J Clin Epidemiol. 2018a;97:49–58.

Noyes J, Booth A, Moore G, Flemming K, Tunçalp Ö, Shakibazadeh E. Synthesising quantitative and qualitative evidence to inform guidelines on complex interventions: clarifying the purposes, designs and outlining some methods. BMJ Glob Health. 2019;4(Suppl 1):e000893.

Peters MD, Godfrey CM, Khalil H, McInerney P, Parker D, Soares CB. Guidance for conducting systematic scoping reviews. Int J Evid Healthcare. 2015;13(3):141–6.

Polanin JR, Pigott TD, Espelage DL, Grotpeter JK. Best practice guidelines for abstract screening large-evidence systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Res Synth Methods. 2019;10(3):330–42.

Article   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Shea BJ, Grimshaw JM, Wells GA, et al. Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2007;7(1):1–7.

Shea BJ, Reeves BC, Wells G, et al. AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both. Brit Med J. 2017;358

Sterne JA, Hernán MA, Reeves BC, et al. ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions. Br Med J. 2016;355

Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC, et al. Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. JAMA. 2000;283(15):2008–12.

Tawfik GM, Dila KAS, Mohamed MYF, et al. A step by step guide for conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis with simulation data. Trop Med Health. 2019;47(1):1–9.

The Critical Appraisal Program. Critical appraisal skills program. Available at https://casp-uk.net/ . 2022. Accessed 29 Aug 2022.

The University of Melbourne. Writing a literature review in Research Techniques 2022. Available at https://students.unimelb.edu.au/academic-skills/explore-our-resources/research-techniques/reviewing-the-literature . Accessed 29 Aug 2022.

The Writing Center University of Winconsin-Madison. Learn how to write a literature review in The Writer’s Handbook – Academic Professional Writing. 2022. Available at https://writing.wisc.edu/handbook/assignments/reviewofliterature/ . Accessed 29 Aug 2022.

Thompson SG, Sharp SJ. Explaining heterogeneity in meta-analysis: a comparison of methods. Stat Med. 1999;18(20):2693–708.

Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, et al. A scoping review on the conduct and reporting of scoping reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2016;16(1):15.

Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, et al. PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med. 2018;169(7):467–73.

Yoneoka D, Henmi M. Clinical heterogeneity in random-effect meta-analysis: between-study boundary estimate problem. Stat Med. 2019;38(21):4131–45.

Yuan Y, Hunt RH. Systematic reviews: the good, the bad, and the ugly. Am J Gastroenterol. 2009;104(5):1086–92.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Centre of Excellence in Treatable Traits, College of Health, Medicine and Wellbeing, University of Newcastle, Hunter Medical Research Institute Asthma and Breathing Programme, Newcastle, NSW, Australia

Dennis Thomas

Department of Pharmacy Practice, Faculty of Pharmacy, Universitas Airlangga, Surabaya, Indonesia

Elida Zairina

Centre for Medicine Use and Safety, Monash Institute of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Faculty of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Monash University, Parkville, VIC, Australia

Johnson George

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Johnson George .

Section Editor information

College of Pharmacy, Qatar University, Doha, Qatar

Derek Charles Stewart

Department of Pharmacy, University of Huddersfield, Huddersfield, United Kingdom

Zaheer-Ud-Din Babar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this entry

Cite this entry.

Thomas, D., Zairina, E., George, J. (2023). Methodological Approaches to Literature Review. In: Encyclopedia of Evidence in Pharmaceutical Public Health and Health Services Research in Pharmacy. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-50247-8_57-1

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-50247-8_57-1

Received : 22 February 2023

Accepted : 22 February 2023

Published : 09 May 2023

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-030-50247-8

Online ISBN : 978-3-030-50247-8

eBook Packages : Springer Reference Biomedicine and Life Sciences Reference Module Biomedical and Life Sciences

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

Research Methods

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

Literature Review

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

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

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

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

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

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

A literature review is important because it:

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

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

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

Not an essay 

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

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

A literature review serves several purposes. For example, it

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Systematic review or meta-analysis?

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

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

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

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

Not all systematic reviews contain meta-analysis. 

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

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

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

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

• << Previous: Getting Started
• Next: Research Design >>
• Last Updated: Aug 21, 2023 4:07 PM
• URL: https://guides.lib.udel.edu/researchmethods

• Methodology
• Open access
• Published: 11 October 2016

Reviewing the research methods literature: principles and strategies illustrated by a systematic overview of sampling in qualitative research

• Stephen J. Gentles 1 , 4 ,
• Cathy Charles 1 ,
• David B. Nicholas 2 ,
• Jenny Ploeg 3 &
• K. Ann McKibbon 1  

Systematic Reviews volume  5 , Article number:  172 ( 2016 ) Cite this article

53k Accesses

28 Citations

13 Altmetric

Metrics details

Overviews of methods are potentially useful means to increase clarity and enhance collective understanding of specific methods topics that may be characterized by ambiguity, inconsistency, or a lack of comprehensiveness. This type of review represents a distinct literature synthesis method, although to date, its methodology remains relatively undeveloped despite several aspects that demand unique review procedures. The purpose of this paper is to initiate discussion about what a rigorous systematic approach to reviews of methods, referred to here as systematic methods overviews , might look like by providing tentative suggestions for approaching specific challenges likely to be encountered. The guidance offered here was derived from experience conducting a systematic methods overview on the topic of sampling in qualitative research.

The guidance is organized into several principles that highlight specific objectives for this type of review given the common challenges that must be overcome to achieve them. Optional strategies for achieving each principle are also proposed, along with discussion of how they were successfully implemented in the overview on sampling. We describe seven paired principles and strategies that address the following aspects: delimiting the initial set of publications to consider, searching beyond standard bibliographic databases, searching without the availability of relevant metadata, selecting publications on purposeful conceptual grounds, defining concepts and other information to abstract iteratively, accounting for inconsistent terminology used to describe specific methods topics, and generating rigorous verifiable analytic interpretations. Since a broad aim in systematic methods overviews is to describe and interpret the relevant literature in qualitative terms, we suggest that iterative decision making at various stages of the review process, and a rigorous qualitative approach to analysis are necessary features of this review type.

Conclusions

We believe that the principles and strategies provided here will be useful to anyone choosing to undertake a systematic methods overview. This paper represents an initial effort to promote high quality critical evaluations of the literature regarding problematic methods topics, which have the potential to promote clearer, shared understandings, and accelerate advances in research methods. Further work is warranted to develop more definitive guidance.

Peer Review reports

While reviews of methods are not new, they represent a distinct review type whose methodology remains relatively under-addressed in the literature despite the clear implications for unique review procedures. One of few examples to describe it is a chapter containing reflections of two contributing authors in a book of 21 reviews on methodological topics compiled for the British National Health Service, Health Technology Assessment Program [ 1 ]. Notable is their observation of how the differences between the methods reviews and conventional quantitative systematic reviews, specifically attributable to their varying content and purpose, have implications for defining what qualifies as systematic. While the authors describe general aspects of “systematicity” (including rigorous application of a methodical search, abstraction, and analysis), they also describe a high degree of variation within the category of methods reviews itself and so offer little in the way of concrete guidance. In this paper, we present tentative concrete guidance, in the form of a preliminary set of proposed principles and optional strategies, for a rigorous systematic approach to reviewing and evaluating the literature on quantitative or qualitative methods topics. For purposes of this article, we have used the term systematic methods overview to emphasize the notion of a systematic approach to such reviews.

The conventional focus of rigorous literature reviews (i.e., review types for which systematic methods have been codified, including the various approaches to quantitative systematic reviews [ 2 – 4 ], and the numerous forms of qualitative and mixed methods literature synthesis [ 5 – 10 ]) is to synthesize empirical research findings from multiple studies. By contrast, the focus of overviews of methods, including the systematic approach we advocate, is to synthesize guidance on methods topics. The literature consulted for such reviews may include the methods literature, methods-relevant sections of empirical research reports, or both. Thus, this paper adds to previous work published in this journal—namely, recent preliminary guidance for conducting reviews of theory [ 11 ]—that has extended the application of systematic review methods to novel review types that are concerned with subject matter other than empirical research findings.

Published examples of methods overviews illustrate the varying objectives they can have. One objective is to establish methodological standards for appraisal purposes. For example, reviews of existing quality appraisal standards have been used to propose universal standards for appraising the quality of primary qualitative research [ 12 ] or evaluating qualitative research reports [ 13 ]. A second objective is to survey the methods-relevant sections of empirical research reports to establish current practices on methods use and reporting practices, which Moher and colleagues [ 14 ] recommend as a means for establishing the needs to be addressed in reporting guidelines (see, for example [ 15 , 16 ]). A third objective for a methods review is to offer clarity and enhance collective understanding regarding a specific methods topic that may be characterized by ambiguity, inconsistency, or a lack of comprehensiveness within the available methods literature. An example of this is a overview whose objective was to review the inconsistent definitions of intention-to-treat analysis (the methodologically preferred approach to analyze randomized controlled trial data) that have been offered in the methods literature and propose a solution for improving conceptual clarity [ 17 ]. Such reviews are warranted because students and researchers who must learn or apply research methods typically lack the time to systematically search, retrieve, review, and compare the available literature to develop a thorough and critical sense of the varied approaches regarding certain controversial or ambiguous methods topics.

While systematic methods overviews , as a review type, include both reviews of the methods literature and reviews of methods-relevant sections from empirical study reports, the guidance provided here is primarily applicable to reviews of the methods literature since it was derived from the experience of conducting such a review [ 18 ], described below. To our knowledge, there are no well-developed proposals on how to rigorously conduct such reviews. Such guidance would have the potential to improve the thoroughness and credibility of critical evaluations of the methods literature, which could increase their utility as a tool for generating understandings that advance research methods, both qualitative and quantitative. Our aim in this paper is thus to initiate discussion about what might constitute a rigorous approach to systematic methods overviews. While we hope to promote rigor in the conduct of systematic methods overviews wherever possible, we do not wish to suggest that all methods overviews need be conducted to the same standard. Rather, we believe that the level of rigor may need to be tailored pragmatically to the specific review objectives, which may not always justify the resource requirements of an intensive review process.

The example systematic methods overview on sampling in qualitative research

The principles and strategies we propose in this paper are derived from experience conducting a systematic methods overview on the topic of sampling in qualitative research [ 18 ]. The main objective of that methods overview was to bring clarity and deeper understanding of the prominent concepts related to sampling in qualitative research (purposeful sampling strategies, saturation, etc.). Specifically, we interpreted the available guidance, commenting on areas lacking clarity, consistency, or comprehensiveness (without proposing any recommendations on how to do sampling). This was achieved by a comparative and critical analysis of publications representing the most influential (i.e., highly cited) guidance across several methodological traditions in qualitative research.

The specific methods and procedures for the overview on sampling [ 18 ] from which our proposals are derived were developed both after soliciting initial input from local experts in qualitative research and an expert health librarian (KAM) and through ongoing careful deliberation throughout the review process. To summarize, in that review, we employed a transparent and rigorous approach to search the methods literature, selected publications for inclusion according to a purposeful and iterative process, abstracted textual data using structured abstraction forms, and analyzed (synthesized) the data using a systematic multi-step approach featuring abstraction of text, summary of information in matrices, and analytic comparisons.

For this article, we reflected on both the problems and challenges encountered at different stages of the review and our means for selecting justifiable procedures to deal with them. Several principles were then derived by considering the generic nature of these problems, while the generalizable aspects of the procedures used to address them formed the basis of optional strategies. Further details of the specific methods and procedures used in the overview on qualitative sampling are provided below to illustrate both the types of objectives and challenges that reviewers will likely need to consider and our approach to implementing each of the principles and strategies.

Organization of the guidance into principles and strategies

For the purposes of this article, principles are general statements outlining what we propose are important aims or considerations within a particular review process, given the unique objectives or challenges to be overcome with this type of review. These statements follow the general format, “considering the objective or challenge of X, we propose Y to be an important aim or consideration.” Strategies are optional and flexible approaches for implementing the previous principle outlined. Thus, generic challenges give rise to principles, which in turn give rise to strategies.

We organize the principles and strategies below into three sections corresponding to processes characteristic of most systematic literature synthesis approaches: literature identification and selection ; data abstraction from the publications selected for inclusion; and analysis , including critical appraisal and synthesis of the abstracted data. Within each section, we also describe the specific methodological decisions and procedures used in the overview on sampling in qualitative research [ 18 ] to illustrate how the principles and strategies for each review process were applied and implemented in a specific case. We expect this guidance and accompanying illustrations will be useful for anyone considering engaging in a methods overview, particularly those who may be familiar with conventional systematic review methods but may not yet appreciate some of the challenges specific to reviewing the methods literature.

Results and discussion

Literature identification and selection.

The identification and selection process includes search and retrieval of publications and the development and application of inclusion and exclusion criteria to select the publications that will be abstracted and analyzed in the final review. Literature identification and selection for overviews of the methods literature is challenging and potentially more resource-intensive than for most reviews of empirical research. This is true for several reasons that we describe below, alongside discussion of the potential solutions. Additionally, we suggest in this section how the selection procedures can be chosen to match the specific analytic approach used in methods overviews.

Delimiting a manageable set of publications

One aspect of methods overviews that can make identification and selection challenging is the fact that the universe of literature containing potentially relevant information regarding most methods-related topics is expansive and often unmanageably so. Reviewers are faced with two large categories of literature: the methods literature , where the possible publication types include journal articles, books, and book chapters; and the methods-relevant sections of empirical study reports , where the possible publication types include journal articles, monographs, books, theses, and conference proceedings. In our systematic overview of sampling in qualitative research, exhaustively searching (including retrieval and first-pass screening) all publication types across both categories of literature for information on a single methods-related topic was too burdensome to be feasible. The following proposed principle follows from the need to delimit a manageable set of literature for the review.

Principle #1:

Considering the broad universe of potentially relevant literature, we propose that an important objective early in the identification and selection stage is to delimit a manageable set of methods-relevant publications in accordance with the objectives of the methods overview.

Strategy #1:

To limit the set of methods-relevant publications that must be managed in the selection process, reviewers have the option to initially review only the methods literature, and exclude the methods-relevant sections of empirical study reports, provided this aligns with the review’s particular objectives.

We propose that reviewers are justified in choosing to select only the methods literature when the objective is to map out the range of recognized concepts relevant to a methods topic, to summarize the most authoritative or influential definitions or meanings for methods-related concepts, or to demonstrate a problematic lack of clarity regarding a widely established methods-related concept and potentially make recommendations for a preferred approach to the methods topic in question. For example, in the case of the methods overview on sampling [ 18 ], the primary aim was to define areas lacking in clarity for multiple widely established sampling-related topics. In the review on intention-to-treat in the context of missing outcome data [ 17 ], the authors identified a lack of clarity based on multiple inconsistent definitions in the literature and went on to recommend separating the issue of how to handle missing outcome data from the issue of whether an intention-to-treat analysis can be claimed.

In contrast to strategy #1, it may be appropriate to select the methods-relevant sections of empirical study reports when the objective is to illustrate how a methods concept is operationalized in research practice or reported by authors. For example, one could review all the publications in 2 years’ worth of issues of five high-impact field-related journals to answer questions about how researchers describe implementing a particular method or approach, or to quantify how consistently they define or report using it. Such reviews are often used to highlight gaps in the reporting practices regarding specific methods, which may be used to justify items to address in reporting guidelines (for example, [ 14 – 16 ]).

It is worth recognizing that other authors have advocated broader positions regarding the scope of literature to be considered in a review, expanding on our perspective. Suri [ 10 ] (who, like us, emphasizes how different sampling strategies are suitable for different literature synthesis objectives) has, for example, described a two-stage literature sampling procedure (pp. 96–97). First, reviewers use an initial approach to conduct a broad overview of the field—for reviews of methods topics, this would entail an initial review of the research methods literature. This is followed by a second more focused stage in which practical examples are purposefully selected—for methods reviews, this would involve sampling the empirical literature to illustrate key themes and variations. While this approach is seductive in its capacity to generate more in depth and interpretive analytic findings, some reviewers may consider it too resource-intensive to include the second step no matter how selective the purposeful sampling. In the overview on sampling where we stopped after the first stage [ 18 ], we discussed our selective focus on the methods literature as a limitation that left opportunities for further analysis of the literature. We explicitly recommended, for example, that theoretical sampling was a topic for which a future review of the methods sections of empirical reports was justified to answer specific questions identified in the primary review.

Ultimately, reviewers must make pragmatic decisions that balance resource considerations, combined with informed predictions about the depth and complexity of literature available on their topic, with the stated objectives of their review. The remaining principles and strategies apply primarily to overviews that include the methods literature, although some aspects may be relevant to reviews that include empirical study reports.

Searching beyond standard bibliographic databases

An important reality affecting identification and selection in overviews of the methods literature is the increased likelihood for relevant publications to be located in sources other than journal articles (which is usually not the case for overviews of empirical research, where journal articles generally represent the primary publication type). In the overview on sampling [ 18 ], out of 41 full-text publications retrieved and reviewed, only 4 were journal articles, while 37 were books or book chapters. Since many books and book chapters did not exist electronically, their full text had to be physically retrieved in hardcopy, while 11 publications were retrievable only through interlibrary loan or purchase request. The tasks associated with such retrieval are substantially more time-consuming than electronic retrieval. Since a substantial proportion of methods-related guidance may be located in publication types that are less comprehensively indexed in standard bibliographic databases, identification and retrieval thus become complicated processes.

Principle #2:

Considering that important sources of methods guidance can be located in non-journal publication types (e.g., books, book chapters) that tend to be poorly indexed in standard bibliographic databases, it is important to consider alternative search methods for identifying relevant publications to be further screened for inclusion.

Strategy #2:

To identify books, book chapters, and other non-journal publication types not thoroughly indexed in standard bibliographic databases, reviewers may choose to consult one or more of the following less standard sources: Google Scholar, publisher web sites, or expert opinion.

In the case of the overview on sampling in qualitative research [ 18 ], Google Scholar had two advantages over other standard bibliographic databases: it indexes and returns records of books and book chapters likely to contain guidance on qualitative research methods topics; and it has been validated as providing higher citation counts than ISI Web of Science (a producer of numerous bibliographic databases accessible through institutional subscription) for several non-biomedical disciplines including the social sciences where qualitative research methods are prominently used [ 19 – 21 ]. While we identified numerous useful publications by consulting experts, the author publication lists generated through Google Scholar searches were uniquely useful to identify more recent editions of methods books identified by experts.

Searching without relevant metadata

Determining what publications to select for inclusion in the overview on sampling [ 18 ] could only rarely be accomplished by reviewing the publication’s metadata. This was because for the many books and other non-journal type publications we identified as possibly relevant, the potential content of interest would be located in only a subsection of the publication. In this common scenario for reviews of the methods literature (as opposed to methods overviews that include empirical study reports), reviewers will often be unable to employ standard title, abstract, and keyword database searching or screening as a means for selecting publications.

Principle #3:

Considering that the presence of information about the topic of interest may not be indicated in the metadata for books and similar publication types, it is important to consider other means of identifying potentially useful publications for further screening.

Strategy #3:

One approach to identifying potentially useful books and similar publication types is to consider what classes of such publications (e.g., all methods manuals for a certain research approach) are likely to contain relevant content, then identify, retrieve, and review the full text of corresponding publications to determine whether they contain information on the topic of interest.

In the example of the overview on sampling in qualitative research [ 18 ], the topic of interest (sampling) was one of numerous topics covered in the general qualitative research methods manuals. Consequently, examples from this class of publications first had to be identified for retrieval according to non-keyword-dependent criteria. Thus, all methods manuals within the three research traditions reviewed (grounded theory, phenomenology, and case study) that might contain discussion of sampling were sought through Google Scholar and expert opinion, their full text obtained, and hand-searched for relevant content to determine eligibility. We used tables of contents and index sections of books to aid this hand searching.

Purposefully selecting literature on conceptual grounds

A final consideration in methods overviews relates to the type of analysis used to generate the review findings. Unlike quantitative systematic reviews where reviewers aim for accurate or unbiased quantitative estimates—something that requires identifying and selecting the literature exhaustively to obtain all relevant data available (i.e., a complete sample)—in methods overviews, reviewers must describe and interpret the relevant literature in qualitative terms to achieve review objectives. In other words, the aim in methods overviews is to seek coverage of the qualitative concepts relevant to the methods topic at hand. For example, in the overview of sampling in qualitative research [ 18 ], achieving review objectives entailed providing conceptual coverage of eight sampling-related topics that emerged as key domains. The following principle recognizes that literature sampling should therefore support generating qualitative conceptual data as the input to analysis.

Principle #4:

Since the analytic findings of a systematic methods overview are generated through qualitative description and interpretation of the literature on a specified topic, selection of the literature should be guided by a purposeful strategy designed to achieve adequate conceptual coverage (i.e., representing an appropriate degree of variation in relevant ideas) of the topic according to objectives of the review.

Strategy #4:

One strategy for choosing the purposeful approach to use in selecting the literature according to the review objectives is to consider whether those objectives imply exploring concepts either at a broad overview level, in which case combining maximum variation selection with a strategy that limits yield (e.g., critical case, politically important, or sampling for influence—described below) may be appropriate; or in depth, in which case purposeful approaches aimed at revealing innovative cases will likely be necessary.

In the methods overview on sampling, the implied scope was broad since we set out to review publications on sampling across three divergent qualitative research traditions—grounded theory, phenomenology, and case study—to facilitate making informative conceptual comparisons. Such an approach would be analogous to maximum variation sampling.

At the same time, the purpose of that review was to critically interrogate the clarity, consistency, and comprehensiveness of literature from these traditions that was “most likely to have widely influenced students’ and researchers’ ideas about sampling” (p. 1774) [ 18 ]. In other words, we explicitly set out to review and critique the most established and influential (and therefore dominant) literature, since this represents a common basis of knowledge among students and researchers seeking understanding or practical guidance on sampling in qualitative research. To achieve this objective, we purposefully sampled publications according to the criterion of influence , which we operationalized as how often an author or publication has been referenced in print or informal discourse. This second sampling approach also limited the literature we needed to consider within our broad scope review to a manageable amount.

To operationalize this strategy of sampling for influence , we sought to identify both the most influential authors within a qualitative research tradition (all of whose citations were subsequently screened) and the most influential publications on the topic of interest by non-influential authors. This involved a flexible approach that combined multiple indicators of influence to avoid the dilemma that any single indicator might provide inadequate coverage. These indicators included bibliometric data (h-index for author influence [ 22 ]; number of cites for publication influence), expert opinion, and cross-references in the literature (i.e., snowball sampling). As a final selection criterion, a publication was included only if it made an original contribution in terms of novel guidance regarding sampling or a related concept; thus, purely secondary sources were excluded. Publish or Perish software (Anne-Wil Harzing; available at http://www.harzing.com/resources/publish-or-perish ) was used to generate bibliometric data via the Google Scholar database. Figure  1 illustrates how identification and selection in the methods overview on sampling was a multi-faceted and iterative process. The authors selected as influential, and the publications selected for inclusion or exclusion are listed in Additional file 1 (Matrices 1, 2a, 2b).

Literature identification and selection process used in the methods overview on sampling [ 18 ]

In summary, the strategies of seeking maximum variation and sampling for influence were employed in the sampling overview to meet the specific review objectives described. Reviewers will need to consider the full range of purposeful literature sampling approaches at their disposal in deciding what best matches the specific aims of their own reviews. Suri [ 10 ] has recently retooled Patton’s well-known typology of purposeful sampling strategies (originally intended for primary research) for application to literature synthesis, providing a useful resource in this respect.

Data abstraction

The purpose of data abstraction in rigorous literature reviews is to locate and record all data relevant to the topic of interest from the full text of included publications, making them available for subsequent analysis. Conventionally, a data abstraction form—consisting of numerous distinct conceptually defined fields to which corresponding information from the source publication is recorded—is developed and employed. There are several challenges, however, to the processes of developing the abstraction form and abstracting the data itself when conducting methods overviews, which we address here. Some of these problems and their solutions may be familiar to those who have conducted qualitative literature syntheses, which are similarly conceptual.

Iteratively defining conceptual information to abstract

In the overview on sampling [ 18 ], while we surveyed multiple sources beforehand to develop a list of concepts relevant for abstraction (e.g., purposeful sampling strategies, saturation, sample size), there was no way for us to anticipate some concepts prior to encountering them in the review process. Indeed, in many cases, reviewers are unable to determine the complete set of methods-related concepts that will be the focus of the final review a priori without having systematically reviewed the publications to be included. Thus, defining what information to abstract beforehand may not be feasible.

Principle #5:

Considering the potential impracticality of defining a complete set of relevant methods-related concepts from a body of literature one has not yet systematically read, selecting and defining fields for data abstraction must often be undertaken iteratively. Thus, concepts to be abstracted can be expected to grow and change as data abstraction proceeds.

Strategy #5:

Reviewers can develop an initial form or set of concepts for abstraction purposes according to standard methods (e.g., incorporating expert feedback, pilot testing) and remain attentive to the need to iteratively revise it as concepts are added or modified during the review. Reviewers should document revisions and return to re-abstract data from previously abstracted publications as the new data requirements are determined.

In the sampling overview [ 18 ], we developed and maintained the abstraction form in Microsoft Word. We derived the initial set of abstraction fields from our own knowledge of relevant sampling-related concepts, consultation with local experts, and reviewing a pilot sample of publications. Since the publications in this review included a large proportion of books, the abstraction process often began by flagging the broad sections within a publication containing topic-relevant information for detailed review to identify text to abstract. When reviewing flagged text, the reviewer occasionally encountered an unanticipated concept significant enough to warrant being added as a new field to the abstraction form. For example, a field was added to capture how authors described the timing of sampling decisions, whether before (a priori) or after (ongoing) starting data collection, or whether this was unclear. In these cases, we systematically documented the modification to the form and returned to previously abstracted publications to abstract any information that might be relevant to the new field.

The logic of this strategy is analogous to the logic used in a form of research synthesis called best fit framework synthesis (BFFS) [ 23 – 25 ]. In that method, reviewers initially code evidence using an a priori framework they have selected. When evidence cannot be accommodated by the selected framework, reviewers then develop new themes or concepts from which they construct a new expanded framework. Both the strategy proposed and the BFFS approach to research synthesis are notable for their rigorous and transparent means to adapt a final set of concepts to the content under review.

Accounting for inconsistent terminology

An important complication affecting the abstraction process in methods overviews is that the language used by authors to describe methods-related concepts can easily vary across publications. For example, authors from different qualitative research traditions often use different terms for similar methods-related concepts. Furthermore, as we found in the sampling overview [ 18 ], there may be cases where no identifiable term, phrase, or label for a methods-related concept is used at all, and a description of it is given instead. This can make searching the text for relevant concepts based on keywords unreliable.

Principle #6:

Since accepted terms may not be used consistently to refer to methods concepts, it is necessary to rely on the definitions for concepts, rather than keywords, to identify relevant information in the publication to abstract.

Strategy #6:

An effective means to systematically identify relevant information is to develop and iteratively adjust written definitions for key concepts (corresponding to abstraction fields) that are consistent with and as inclusive of as much of the literature reviewed as possible. Reviewers then seek information that matches these definitions (rather than keywords) when scanning a publication for relevant data to abstract.

In the abstraction process for the sampling overview [ 18 ], we noted the several concepts of interest to the review for which abstraction by keyword was particularly problematic due to inconsistent terminology across publications: sampling , purposeful sampling , sampling strategy , and saturation (for examples, see Additional file 1 , Matrices 3a, 3b, 4). We iteratively developed definitions for these concepts by abstracting text from publications that either provided an explicit definition or from which an implicit definition could be derived, which was recorded in fields dedicated to the concept’s definition. Using a method of constant comparison, we used text from definition fields to inform and modify a centrally maintained definition of the corresponding concept to optimize its fit and inclusiveness with the literature reviewed. Table  1 shows, as an example, the final definition constructed in this way for one of the central concepts of the review, qualitative sampling .

We applied iteratively developed definitions when making decisions about what specific text to abstract for an existing field, which allowed us to abstract concept-relevant data even if no recognized keyword was used. For example, this was the case for the sampling-related concept, saturation , where the relevant text available for abstraction in one publication [ 26 ]—“to continue to collect data until nothing new was being observed or recorded, no matter how long that takes”—was not accompanied by any term or label whatsoever.

This comparative analytic strategy (and our approach to analysis more broadly as described in strategy #7, below) is analogous to the process of reciprocal translation —a technique first introduced for meta-ethnography by Noblit and Hare [ 27 ] that has since been recognized as a common element in a variety of qualitative metasynthesis approaches [ 28 ]. Reciprocal translation, taken broadly, involves making sense of a study’s findings in terms of the findings of the other studies included in the review. In practice, it has been operationalized in different ways. Melendez-Torres and colleagues developed a typology from their review of the metasynthesis literature, describing four overlapping categories of specific operations undertaken in reciprocal translation: visual representation, key paper integration, data reduction and thematic extraction, and line-by-line coding [ 28 ]. The approaches suggested in both strategies #6 and #7, with their emphasis on constant comparison, appear to fall within the line-by-line coding category.

Generating credible and verifiable analytic interpretations

The analysis in a systematic methods overview must support its more general objective, which we suggested above is often to offer clarity and enhance collective understanding regarding a chosen methods topic. In our experience, this involves describing and interpreting the relevant literature in qualitative terms. Furthermore, any interpretative analysis required may entail reaching different levels of abstraction, depending on the more specific objectives of the review. For example, in the overview on sampling [ 18 ], we aimed to produce a comparative analysis of how multiple sampling-related topics were treated differently within and among different qualitative research traditions. To promote credibility of the review, however, not only should one seek a qualitative analytic approach that facilitates reaching varying levels of abstraction but that approach must also ensure that abstract interpretations are supported and justified by the source data and not solely the product of the analyst’s speculative thinking.

Principle #7:

Considering the qualitative nature of the analysis required in systematic methods overviews, it is important to select an analytic method whose interpretations can be verified as being consistent with the literature selected, regardless of the level of abstraction reached.

Strategy #7:

We suggest employing the constant comparative method of analysis [ 29 ] because it supports developing and verifying analytic links to the source data throughout progressively interpretive or abstract levels. In applying this approach, we advise a rigorous approach, documenting how supportive quotes or references to the original texts are carried forward in the successive steps of analysis to allow for easy verification.

The analytic approach used in the methods overview on sampling [ 18 ] comprised four explicit steps, progressing in level of abstraction—data abstraction, matrices, narrative summaries, and final analytic conclusions (Fig.  2 ). While we have positioned data abstraction as the second stage of the generic review process (prior to Analysis), above, we also considered it as an initial step of analysis in the sampling overview for several reasons. First, it involved a process of constant comparisons and iterative decision-making about the fields to add or define during development and modification of the abstraction form, through which we established the range of concepts to be addressed in the review. At the same time, abstraction involved continuous analytic decisions about what textual quotes (ranging in size from short phrases to numerous paragraphs) to record in the fields thus created. This constant comparative process was analogous to open coding in which textual data from publications was compared to conceptual fields (equivalent to codes) or to other instances of data previously abstracted when constructing definitions to optimize their fit with the overall literature as described in strategy #6. Finally, in the data abstraction step, we also recorded our first interpretive thoughts in dedicated fields, providing initial material for the more abstract analytic steps.

Summary of progressive steps of analysis used in the methods overview on sampling [ 18 ]

In the second step of the analysis, we constructed topic-specific matrices , or tables, by copying relevant quotes from abstraction forms into the appropriate cells of matrices (for the complete set of analytic matrices developed in the sampling review, see Additional file 1 (matrices 3 to 10)). Each matrix ranged from one to five pages; row headings, nested three-deep, identified the methodological tradition, author, and publication, respectively; and column headings identified the concepts, which corresponded to abstraction fields. Matrices thus allowed us to make further comparisons across methodological traditions, and between authors within a tradition. In the third step of analysis, we recorded our comparative observations as narrative summaries , in which we used illustrative quotes more sparingly. In the final step, we developed analytic conclusions based on the narrative summaries about the sampling-related concepts within each methodological tradition for which clarity, consistency, or comprehensiveness of the available guidance appeared to be lacking. Higher levels of analysis thus built logically from the lower levels, enabling us to easily verify analytic conclusions by tracing the support for claims by comparing the original text of publications reviewed.

Integrative versus interpretive methods overviews

The analytic product of systematic methods overviews is comparable to qualitative evidence syntheses, since both involve describing and interpreting the relevant literature in qualitative terms. Most qualitative synthesis approaches strive to produce new conceptual understandings that vary in level of interpretation. Dixon-Woods and colleagues [ 30 ] elaborate on a useful distinction, originating from Noblit and Hare [ 27 ], between integrative and interpretive reviews. Integrative reviews focus on summarizing available primary data and involve using largely secure and well defined concepts to do so; definitions are used from an early stage to specify categories for abstraction (or coding) of data, which in turn supports their aggregation; they do not seek as their primary focus to develop or specify new concepts, although they may achieve some theoretical or interpretive functions. For interpretive reviews, meanwhile, the main focus is to develop new concepts and theories that integrate them, with the implication that the concepts developed become fully defined towards the end of the analysis. These two forms are not completely distinct, and “every integrative synthesis will include elements of interpretation, and every interpretive synthesis will include elements of aggregation of data” [ 30 ].

The example methods overview on sampling [ 18 ] could be classified as predominantly integrative because its primary goal was to aggregate influential authors’ ideas on sampling-related concepts; there were also, however, elements of interpretive synthesis since it aimed to develop new ideas about where clarity in guidance on certain sampling-related topics is lacking, and definitions for some concepts were flexible and not fixed until late in the review. We suggest that most systematic methods overviews will be classifiable as predominantly integrative (aggregative). Nevertheless, more highly interpretive methods overviews are also quite possible—for example, when the review objective is to provide a highly critical analysis for the purpose of generating new methodological guidance. In such cases, reviewers may need to sample more deeply (see strategy #4), specifically by selecting empirical research reports (i.e., to go beyond dominant or influential ideas in the methods literature) that are likely to feature innovations or instructive lessons in employing a given method.

In this paper, we have outlined tentative guidance in the form of seven principles and strategies on how to conduct systematic methods overviews, a review type in which methods-relevant literature is systematically analyzed with the aim of offering clarity and enhancing collective understanding regarding a specific methods topic. Our proposals include strategies for delimiting the set of publications to consider, searching beyond standard bibliographic databases, searching without the availability of relevant metadata, selecting publications on purposeful conceptual grounds, defining concepts and other information to abstract iteratively, accounting for inconsistent terminology, and generating credible and verifiable analytic interpretations. We hope the suggestions proposed will be useful to others undertaking reviews on methods topics in future.

As far as we are aware, this is the first published source of concrete guidance for conducting this type of review. It is important to note that our primary objective was to initiate methodological discussion by stimulating reflection on what rigorous methods for this type of review should look like, leaving the development of more complete guidance to future work. While derived from the experience of reviewing a single qualitative methods topic, we believe the principles and strategies provided are generalizable to overviews of both qualitative and quantitative methods topics alike. However, it is expected that additional challenges and insights for conducting such reviews have yet to be defined. Thus, we propose that next steps for developing more definitive guidance should involve an attempt to collect and integrate other reviewers’ perspectives and experiences in conducting systematic methods overviews on a broad range of qualitative and quantitative methods topics. Formalized guidance and standards would improve the quality of future methods overviews, something we believe has important implications for advancing qualitative and quantitative methodology. When undertaken to a high standard, rigorous critical evaluations of the available methods guidance have significant potential to make implicit controversies explicit, and improve the clarity and precision of our understandings of problematic qualitative or quantitative methods issues.

A review process central to most types of rigorous reviews of empirical studies, which we did not explicitly address in a separate review step above, is quality appraisal . The reason we have not treated this as a separate step stems from the different objectives of the primary publications included in overviews of the methods literature (i.e., providing methodological guidance) compared to the primary publications included in the other established review types (i.e., reporting findings from single empirical studies). This is not to say that appraising quality of the methods literature is not an important concern for systematic methods overviews. Rather, appraisal is much more integral to (and difficult to separate from) the analysis step, in which we advocate appraising clarity, consistency, and comprehensiveness—the quality appraisal criteria that we suggest are appropriate for the methods literature. As a second important difference regarding appraisal, we currently advocate appraising the aforementioned aspects at the level of the literature in aggregate rather than at the level of individual publications. One reason for this is that methods guidance from individual publications generally builds on previous literature, and thus we feel that ahistorical judgments about comprehensiveness of single publications lack relevance and utility. Additionally, while different methods authors may express themselves less clearly than others, their guidance can nonetheless be highly influential and useful, and should therefore not be downgraded or ignored based on considerations of clarity—which raises questions about the alternative uses that quality appraisals of individual publications might have. Finally, legitimate variability in the perspectives that methods authors wish to emphasize, and the levels of generality at which they write about methods, makes critiquing individual publications based on the criterion of clarity a complex and potentially problematic endeavor that is beyond the scope of this paper to address. By appraising the current state of the literature at a holistic level, reviewers stand to identify important gaps in understanding that represent valuable opportunities for further methodological development.

To summarize, the principles and strategies provided here may be useful to those seeking to undertake their own systematic methods overview. Additional work is needed, however, to establish guidance that is comprehensive by comparing the experiences from conducting a variety of methods overviews on a range of methods topics. Efforts that further advance standards for systematic methods overviews have the potential to promote high-quality critical evaluations that produce conceptually clear and unified understandings of problematic methods topics, thereby accelerating the advance of research methodology.

Hutton JL, Ashcroft R. What does “systematic” mean for reviews of methods? In: Black N, Brazier J, Fitzpatrick R, Reeves B, editors. Health services research methods: a guide to best practice. London: BMJ Publishing Group; 1998. p. 249–54.

Google Scholar  

Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. In. Edited by Higgins JPT, Green S, Version 5.1.0 edn: The Cochrane Collaboration; 2011.

Centre for Reviews and Dissemination: Systematic reviews: CRD’s guidance for undertaking reviews in health care . York: Centre for Reviews and Dissemination; 2009.

Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gotzsche PC, Ioannidis JPA, Clarke M, Devereaux PJ, Kleijnen J, Moher D. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. BMJ. 2009;339:b2700–0.

Barnett-Page E, Thomas J. Methods for the synthesis of qualitative research: a critical review. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2009;9(1):59.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Kastner M, Tricco AC, Soobiah C, Lillie E, Perrier L, Horsley T, Welch V, Cogo E, Antony J, Straus SE. What is the most appropriate knowledge synthesis method to conduct a review? Protocol for a scoping review. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2012;12(1):1–1.

Article   Google Scholar  

Booth A, Noyes J, Flemming K, Gerhardus A. Guidance on choosing qualitative evidence synthesis methods for use in health technology assessments of complex interventions. In: Integrate-HTA. 2016.

Booth A, Sutton A, Papaioannou D. Systematic approaches to successful literature review. 2nd ed. London: Sage; 2016.

Hannes K, Lockwood C. Synthesizing qualitative research: choosing the right approach. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell; 2012.

Suri H. Towards methodologically inclusive research syntheses: expanding possibilities. New York: Routledge; 2014.

Campbell M, Egan M, Lorenc T, Bond L, Popham F, Fenton C, Benzeval M. Considering methodological options for reviews of theory: illustrated by a review of theories linking income and health. Syst Rev. 2014;3(1):1–11.

Cohen DJ, Crabtree BF. Evaluative criteria for qualitative research in health care: controversies and recommendations. Ann Fam Med. 2008;6(4):331–9.

Tong A, Sainsbury P, Craig J. Consolidated criteria for reportingqualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. Int J Qual Health Care. 2007;19(6):349–57.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Moher D, Schulz KF, Simera I, Altman DG. Guidance for developers of health research reporting guidelines. PLoS Med. 2010;7(2):e1000217.

Moher D, Tetzlaff J, Tricco AC, Sampson M, Altman DG. Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews. PLoS Med. 2007;4(3):e78.

Chan AW, Altman DG. Epidemiology and reporting of randomised trials published in PubMed journals. Lancet. 2005;365(9465):1159–62.

Alshurafa M, Briel M, Akl EA, Haines T, Moayyedi P, Gentles SJ, Rios L, Tran C, Bhatnagar N, Lamontagne F, et al. Inconsistent definitions for intention-to-treat in relation to missing outcome data: systematic review of the methods literature. PLoS One. 2012;7(11):e49163.

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Gentles SJ, Charles C, Ploeg J, McKibbon KA. Sampling in qualitative research: insights from an overview of the methods literature. Qual Rep. 2015;20(11):1772–89.

Harzing A-W, Alakangas S. Google Scholar, Scopus and the Web of Science: a longitudinal and cross-disciplinary comparison. Scientometrics. 2016;106(2):787–804.

Harzing A-WK, van der Wal R. Google Scholar as a new source for citation analysis. Ethics Sci Environ Polit. 2008;8(1):61–73.

Kousha K, Thelwall M. Google Scholar citations and Google Web/URL citations: a multi‐discipline exploratory analysis. J Assoc Inf Sci Technol. 2007;58(7):1055–65.

Hirsch JE. An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005;102(46):16569–72.

Booth A, Carroll C. How to build up the actionable knowledge base: the role of ‘best fit’ framework synthesis for studies of improvement in healthcare. BMJ Quality Safety. 2015;24(11):700–8.

Carroll C, Booth A, Leaviss J, Rick J. “Best fit” framework synthesis: refining the method. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2013;13(1):37.

Carroll C, Booth A, Cooper K. A worked example of “best fit” framework synthesis: a systematic review of views concerning the taking of some potential chemopreventive agents. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2011;11(1):29.

Cohen MZ, Kahn DL, Steeves DL. Hermeneutic phenomenological research: a practical guide for nurse researchers. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 2000.

Noblit GW, Hare RD. Meta-ethnography: synthesizing qualitative studies. Newbury Park: Sage; 1988.

Book   Google Scholar  

Melendez-Torres GJ, Grant S, Bonell C. A systematic review and critical appraisal of qualitative metasynthetic practice in public health to develop a taxonomy of operations of reciprocal translation. Res Synthesis Methods. 2015;6(4):357–71.

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Glaser BG, Strauss A. The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago: Aldine; 1967.

Dixon-Woods M, Agarwal S, Young B, Jones D, Sutton A. Integrative approaches to qualitative and quantitative evidence. In: UK National Health Service. 2004. p. 1–44.

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

There was no funding for this work.

Availability of data and materials

The systematic methods overview used as a worked example in this article (Gentles SJ, Charles C, Ploeg J, McKibbon KA: Sampling in qualitative research: insights from an overview of the methods literature. The Qual Rep 2015, 20(11):1772-1789) is available from http://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr/vol20/iss11/5 .

Authors’ contributions

SJG wrote the first draft of this article, with CC contributing to drafting. All authors contributed to revising the manuscript. All authors except CC (deceased) approved the final draft. SJG, CC, KAB, and JP were involved in developing methods for the systematic methods overview on sampling.

Authors’ information

Competing interests.

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Consent for publication

Ethics approval and consent to participate, author information, authors and affiliations.

Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada

Stephen J. Gentles, Cathy Charles & K. Ann McKibbon

Faculty of Social Work, University of Calgary, Alberta, Canada

David B. Nicholas

School of Nursing, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada

Jenny Ploeg

CanChild Centre for Childhood Disability Research, McMaster University, 1400 Main Street West, IAHS 408, Hamilton, ON, L8S 1C7, Canada

Stephen J. Gentles

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stephen J. Gentles .

Additional information

Cathy Charles is deceased

Additional file

Additional file 1:.

Submitted: Analysis_matrices. (DOC 330 kb)

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Gentles, S.J., Charles, C., Nicholas, D.B. et al. Reviewing the research methods literature: principles and strategies illustrated by a systematic overview of sampling in qualitative research. Syst Rev 5 , 172 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-016-0343-0

Download citation

Received : 06 June 2016

Accepted : 14 September 2016

Published : 11 October 2016

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-016-0343-0

Share this article

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Systematic review
• Literature selection
• Research methods
• Research methodology
• Overview of methods
• Systematic methods overview
• Review methods

Systematic Reviews

ISSN: 2046-4053

• Submission enquiries: Access here and click Contact Us
• General enquiries: [email protected]

• Privacy Policy

Home » Research Methodology – Types, Examples and writing Guide

Research Methodology – Types, Examples and writing Guide

Table of Contents

Research Methodology

Definition:

Research Methodology refers to the systematic and scientific approach used to conduct research, investigate problems, and gather data and information for a specific purpose. It involves the techniques and procedures used to identify, collect , analyze , and interpret data to answer research questions or solve research problems . Moreover, They are philosophical and theoretical frameworks that guide the research process.

Structure of Research Methodology

Research methodology formats can vary depending on the specific requirements of the research project, but the following is a basic example of a structure for a research methodology section:

I. Introduction

• Provide an overview of the research problem and the need for a research methodology section
• Outline the main research questions and objectives

II. Research Design

• Explain the research design chosen and why it is appropriate for the research question(s) and objectives
• Discuss any alternative research designs considered and why they were not chosen
• Describe the research setting and participants (if applicable)

III. Data Collection Methods

• Describe the methods used to collect data (e.g., surveys, interviews, observations)
• Explain how the data collection methods were chosen and why they are appropriate for the research question(s) and objectives
• Detail any procedures or instruments used for data collection

IV. Data Analysis Methods

• Describe the methods used to analyze the data (e.g., statistical analysis, content analysis )
• Explain how the data analysis methods were chosen and why they are appropriate for the research question(s) and objectives
• Detail any procedures or software used for data analysis

V. Ethical Considerations

• Discuss any ethical issues that may arise from the research and how they were addressed
• Explain how informed consent was obtained (if applicable)
• Detail any measures taken to ensure confidentiality and anonymity

VI. Limitations

• Identify any potential limitations of the research methodology and how they may impact the results and conclusions

VII. Conclusion

• Summarize the key aspects of the research methodology section
• Explain how the research methodology addresses the research question(s) and objectives

Research Methodology Types

Types of Research Methodology are as follows:

Quantitative Research Methodology

This is a research methodology that involves the collection and analysis of numerical data using statistical methods. This type of research is often used to study cause-and-effect relationships and to make predictions.

Qualitative Research Methodology

This is a research methodology that involves the collection and analysis of non-numerical data such as words, images, and observations. This type of research is often used to explore complex phenomena, to gain an in-depth understanding of a particular topic, and to generate hypotheses.

Mixed-Methods Research Methodology

This is a research methodology that combines elements of both quantitative and qualitative research. This approach can be particularly useful for studies that aim to explore complex phenomena and to provide a more comprehensive understanding of a particular topic.

Case Study Research Methodology

This is a research methodology that involves in-depth examination of a single case or a small number of cases. Case studies are often used in psychology, sociology, and anthropology to gain a detailed understanding of a particular individual or group.

Action Research Methodology

This is a research methodology that involves a collaborative process between researchers and practitioners to identify and solve real-world problems. Action research is often used in education, healthcare, and social work.

Experimental Research Methodology

This is a research methodology that involves the manipulation of one or more independent variables to observe their effects on a dependent variable. Experimental research is often used to study cause-and-effect relationships and to make predictions.

Survey Research Methodology

This is a research methodology that involves the collection of data from a sample of individuals using questionnaires or interviews. Survey research is often used to study attitudes, opinions, and behaviors.

Grounded Theory Research Methodology

This is a research methodology that involves the development of theories based on the data collected during the research process. Grounded theory is often used in sociology and anthropology to generate theories about social phenomena.

Research Methodology Example

An Example of Research Methodology could be the following:

Research Methodology for Investigating the Effectiveness of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy in Reducing Symptoms of Depression in Adults

Introduction:

The aim of this research is to investigate the effectiveness of cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) in reducing symptoms of depression in adults. To achieve this objective, a randomized controlled trial (RCT) will be conducted using a mixed-methods approach.

Research Design:

The study will follow a pre-test and post-test design with two groups: an experimental group receiving CBT and a control group receiving no intervention. The study will also include a qualitative component, in which semi-structured interviews will be conducted with a subset of participants to explore their experiences of receiving CBT.

Participants:

Participants will be recruited from community mental health clinics in the local area. The sample will consist of 100 adults aged 18-65 years old who meet the diagnostic criteria for major depressive disorder. Participants will be randomly assigned to either the experimental group or the control group.

Intervention :

The experimental group will receive 12 weekly sessions of CBT, each lasting 60 minutes. The intervention will be delivered by licensed mental health professionals who have been trained in CBT. The control group will receive no intervention during the study period.

Data Collection:

Quantitative data will be collected through the use of standardized measures such as the Beck Depression Inventory-II (BDI-II) and the Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 (GAD-7). Data will be collected at baseline, immediately after the intervention, and at a 3-month follow-up. Qualitative data will be collected through semi-structured interviews with a subset of participants from the experimental group. The interviews will be conducted at the end of the intervention period, and will explore participants’ experiences of receiving CBT.

Data Analysis:

Quantitative data will be analyzed using descriptive statistics, t-tests, and mixed-model analyses of variance (ANOVA) to assess the effectiveness of the intervention. Qualitative data will be analyzed using thematic analysis to identify common themes and patterns in participants’ experiences of receiving CBT.

Ethical Considerations:

This study will comply with ethical guidelines for research involving human subjects. Participants will provide informed consent before participating in the study, and their privacy and confidentiality will be protected throughout the study. Any adverse events or reactions will be reported and managed appropriately.

Data Management:

All data collected will be kept confidential and stored securely using password-protected databases. Identifying information will be removed from qualitative data transcripts to ensure participants’ anonymity.

Limitations:

One potential limitation of this study is that it only focuses on one type of psychotherapy, CBT, and may not generalize to other types of therapy or interventions. Another limitation is that the study will only include participants from community mental health clinics, which may not be representative of the general population.

Conclusion:

This research aims to investigate the effectiveness of CBT in reducing symptoms of depression in adults. By using a randomized controlled trial and a mixed-methods approach, the study will provide valuable insights into the mechanisms underlying the relationship between CBT and depression. The results of this study will have important implications for the development of effective treatments for depression in clinical settings.

How to Write Research Methodology

Writing a research methodology involves explaining the methods and techniques you used to conduct research, collect data, and analyze results. It’s an essential section of any research paper or thesis, as it helps readers understand the validity and reliability of your findings. Here are the steps to write a research methodology:

• Start by explaining your research question: Begin the methodology section by restating your research question and explaining why it’s important. This helps readers understand the purpose of your research and the rationale behind your methods.
• Describe your research design: Explain the overall approach you used to conduct research. This could be a qualitative or quantitative research design, experimental or non-experimental, case study or survey, etc. Discuss the advantages and limitations of the chosen design.
• Discuss your sample: Describe the participants or subjects you included in your study. Include details such as their demographics, sampling method, sample size, and any exclusion criteria used.
• Describe your data collection methods : Explain how you collected data from your participants. This could include surveys, interviews, observations, questionnaires, or experiments. Include details on how you obtained informed consent, how you administered the tools, and how you minimized the risk of bias.
• Explain your data analysis techniques: Describe the methods you used to analyze the data you collected. This could include statistical analysis, content analysis, thematic analysis, or discourse analysis. Explain how you dealt with missing data, outliers, and any other issues that arose during the analysis.
• Discuss the validity and reliability of your research : Explain how you ensured the validity and reliability of your study. This could include measures such as triangulation, member checking, peer review, or inter-coder reliability.
• Acknowledge any limitations of your research: Discuss any limitations of your study, including any potential threats to validity or generalizability. This helps readers understand the scope of your findings and how they might apply to other contexts.
• Provide a summary: End the methodology section by summarizing the methods and techniques you used to conduct your research. This provides a clear overview of your research methodology and helps readers understand the process you followed to arrive at your findings.

When to Write Research Methodology

Research methodology is typically written after the research proposal has been approved and before the actual research is conducted. It should be written prior to data collection and analysis, as it provides a clear roadmap for the research project.

The research methodology is an important section of any research paper or thesis, as it describes the methods and procedures that will be used to conduct the research. It should include details about the research design, data collection methods, data analysis techniques, and any ethical considerations.

The methodology should be written in a clear and concise manner, and it should be based on established research practices and standards. It is important to provide enough detail so that the reader can understand how the research was conducted and evaluate the validity of the results.

Applications of Research Methodology

Here are some of the applications of research methodology:

• To identify the research problem: Research methodology is used to identify the research problem, which is the first step in conducting any research.
• To design the research: Research methodology helps in designing the research by selecting the appropriate research method, research design, and sampling technique.
• To collect data: Research methodology provides a systematic approach to collect data from primary and secondary sources.
• To analyze data: Research methodology helps in analyzing the collected data using various statistical and non-statistical techniques.
• To test hypotheses: Research methodology provides a framework for testing hypotheses and drawing conclusions based on the analysis of data.
• To generalize findings: Research methodology helps in generalizing the findings of the research to the target population.
• To develop theories : Research methodology is used to develop new theories and modify existing theories based on the findings of the research.
• To evaluate programs and policies : Research methodology is used to evaluate the effectiveness of programs and policies by collecting data and analyzing it.
• To improve decision-making: Research methodology helps in making informed decisions by providing reliable and valid data.

Purpose of Research Methodology

Research methodology serves several important purposes, including:

• To guide the research process: Research methodology provides a systematic framework for conducting research. It helps researchers to plan their research, define their research questions, and select appropriate methods and techniques for collecting and analyzing data.
• To ensure research quality: Research methodology helps researchers to ensure that their research is rigorous, reliable, and valid. It provides guidelines for minimizing bias and error in data collection and analysis, and for ensuring that research findings are accurate and trustworthy.
• To replicate research: Research methodology provides a clear and detailed account of the research process, making it possible for other researchers to replicate the study and verify its findings.
• To advance knowledge: Research methodology enables researchers to generate new knowledge and to contribute to the body of knowledge in their field. It provides a means for testing hypotheses, exploring new ideas, and discovering new insights.
• To inform decision-making: Research methodology provides evidence-based information that can inform policy and decision-making in a variety of fields, including medicine, public health, education, and business.

Advantages of Research Methodology

Research methodology has several advantages that make it a valuable tool for conducting research in various fields. Here are some of the key advantages of research methodology:

• Systematic and structured approach : Research methodology provides a systematic and structured approach to conducting research, which ensures that the research is conducted in a rigorous and comprehensive manner.
• Objectivity : Research methodology aims to ensure objectivity in the research process, which means that the research findings are based on evidence and not influenced by personal bias or subjective opinions.
• Replicability : Research methodology ensures that research can be replicated by other researchers, which is essential for validating research findings and ensuring their accuracy.
• Reliability : Research methodology aims to ensure that the research findings are reliable, which means that they are consistent and can be depended upon.
• Validity : Research methodology ensures that the research findings are valid, which means that they accurately reflect the research question or hypothesis being tested.
• Efficiency : Research methodology provides a structured and efficient way of conducting research, which helps to save time and resources.
• Flexibility : Research methodology allows researchers to choose the most appropriate research methods and techniques based on the research question, data availability, and other relevant factors.
• Scope for innovation: Research methodology provides scope for innovation and creativity in designing research studies and developing new research techniques.

Research Methodology Vs Research Methods

About the author

Muhammad Hassan

Researcher, Academic Writer, Web developer

You may also like

Research Paper Outline – Types, Example, Template

Data Analysis – Process, Methods and Types

Scope of the Research – Writing Guide and...

Table of Contents – Types, Formats, Examples

Research Design – Types, Methods and Examples

Tables in Research Paper – Types, Creating Guide...

Have a language expert improve your writing

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

• Knowledge Base
• Dissertation
• What Is a Research Methodology? | Steps & Tips

What Is a Research Methodology? | Steps & Tips

Published on August 25, 2022 by Shona McCombes and Tegan George. Revised on November 20, 2023.

Your research methodology discusses and explains the data collection and analysis methods you used in your research. A key part of your thesis, dissertation , or research paper , the methodology chapter explains what you did and how you did it, allowing readers to evaluate the reliability and validity of your research and your dissertation topic .

It should include:

• The type of research you conducted
• How you collected and analyzed your data
• Any tools or materials you used in the research
• How you mitigated or avoided research biases
• Why you chose these methods
• Your methodology section should generally be written in the past tense .
• Academic style guides in your field may provide detailed guidelines on what to include for different types of studies.
• Your citation style might provide guidelines for your methodology section (e.g., an APA Style methods section ).

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

Upload your document to correct all your mistakes in minutes

Table of contents

How to write a research methodology, why is a methods section important, step 1: explain your methodological approach, step 2: describe your data collection methods, step 3: describe your analysis method, step 4: evaluate and justify the methodological choices you made, tips for writing a strong methodology chapter, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions about methodology.

Here's why students love Scribbr's proofreading services

Discover proofreading & editing

Your methods section is your opportunity to share how you conducted your research and why you chose the methods you chose. It’s also the place to show that your research was rigorously conducted and can be replicated .

It gives your research legitimacy and situates it within your field, and also gives your readers a place to refer to if they have any questions or critiques in other sections.

You can start by introducing your overall approach to your research. You have two options here.

Option 1: Start with your “what”

What research problem or question did you investigate?

• Aim to describe the characteristics of something?
• Explore an under-researched topic?
• Establish a causal relationship?

And what type of data did you need to achieve this aim?

• Quantitative data , qualitative data , or a mix of both?
• Primary data collected yourself, or secondary data collected by someone else?
• Experimental data gathered by controlling and manipulating variables, or descriptive data gathered via observations?

Option 2: Start with your “why”

Depending on your discipline, you can also start with a discussion of the rationale and assumptions underpinning your methodology. In other words, why did you choose these methods for your study?

• Why is this the best way to answer your research question?
• Is this a standard methodology in your field, or does it require justification?
• Were there any ethical considerations involved in your choices?
• What are the criteria for validity and reliability in this type of research ? How did you prevent bias from affecting your data?

Once you have introduced your reader to your methodological approach, you should share full details about your data collection methods .

Quantitative methods

In order to be considered generalizable, you should describe quantitative research methods in enough detail for another researcher to replicate your study.

Here, explain how you operationalized your concepts and measured your variables. Discuss your sampling method or inclusion and exclusion criteria , as well as any tools, procedures, and materials you used to gather your data.

Surveys Describe where, when, and how the survey was conducted.

• How did you design the questionnaire?
• What form did your questions take (e.g., multiple choice, Likert scale )?
• Were your surveys conducted in-person or virtually?
• What sampling method did you use to select participants?
• What was your sample size and response rate?

Experiments Share full details of the tools, techniques, and procedures you used to conduct your experiment.

• How did you design the experiment ?
• How did you recruit participants?
• How did you manipulate and measure the variables ?
• What tools did you use?

Existing data Explain how you gathered and selected the material (such as datasets or archival data) that you used in your analysis.

• Where did you source the material?
• How was the data originally produced?
• What criteria did you use to select material (e.g., date range)?

The survey consisted of 5 multiple-choice questions and 10 questions measured on a 7-point Likert scale.

The goal was to collect survey responses from 350 customers visiting the fitness apparel company’s brick-and-mortar location in Boston on July 4–8, 2022, between 11:00 and 15:00.

Here, a customer was defined as a person who had purchased a product from the company on the day they took the survey. Participants were given 5 minutes to fill in the survey anonymously. In total, 408 customers responded, but not all surveys were fully completed. Due to this, 371 survey results were included in the analysis.

• Information bias
• Omitted variable bias
• Regression to the mean
• Survivorship bias
• Undercoverage bias
• Sampling bias

Qualitative methods

In qualitative research , methods are often more flexible and subjective. For this reason, it’s crucial to robustly explain the methodology choices you made.

Be sure to discuss the criteria you used to select your data, the context in which your research was conducted, and the role you played in collecting your data (e.g., were you an active participant, or a passive observer?)

Interviews or focus groups Describe where, when, and how the interviews were conducted.

• How did you find and select participants?
• How many participants took part?
• What form did the interviews take ( structured , semi-structured , or unstructured )?
• How long were the interviews?
• How were they recorded?

Participant observation Describe where, when, and how you conducted the observation or ethnography .

• What group or community did you observe? How long did you spend there?
• How did you gain access to this group? What role did you play in the community?
• How long did you spend conducting the research? Where was it located?
• How did you record your data (e.g., audiovisual recordings, note-taking)?

Existing data Explain how you selected case study materials for your analysis.

• What type of materials did you analyze?
• How did you select them?

In order to gain better insight into possibilities for future improvement of the fitness store’s product range, semi-structured interviews were conducted with 8 returning customers.

Here, a returning customer was defined as someone who usually bought products at least twice a week from the store.

Surveys were used to select participants. Interviews were conducted in a small office next to the cash register and lasted approximately 20 minutes each. Answers were recorded by note-taking, and seven interviews were also filmed with consent. One interviewee preferred not to be filmed.

• The Hawthorne effect
• Observer bias
• The placebo effect
• Response bias and Nonresponse bias
• The Pygmalion effect
• Recall bias
• Social desirability bias
• Self-selection bias

Mixed methods

Mixed methods research combines quantitative and qualitative approaches. If a standalone quantitative or qualitative study is insufficient to answer your research question, mixed methods may be a good fit for you.

Mixed methods are less common than standalone analyses, largely because they require a great deal of effort to pull off successfully. If you choose to pursue mixed methods, it’s especially important to robustly justify your methods.

Don't submit your assignments before you do this

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

Try for free

Next, you should indicate how you processed and analyzed your data. Avoid going into too much detail: you should not start introducing or discussing any of your results at this stage.

In quantitative research , your analysis will be based on numbers. In your methods section, you can include:

• How you prepared the data before analyzing it (e.g., checking for missing data , removing outliers , transforming variables)
• Which software you used (e.g., SPSS, Stata or R)
• Which statistical tests you used (e.g., two-tailed t test , simple linear regression )

In qualitative research, your analysis will be based on language, images, and observations (often involving some form of textual analysis ).

Specific methods might include:

• Content analysis : Categorizing and discussing the meaning of words, phrases and sentences
• Thematic analysis : Coding and closely examining the data to identify broad themes and patterns
• Discourse analysis : Studying communication and meaning in relation to their social context

Mixed methods combine the above two research methods, integrating both qualitative and quantitative approaches into one coherent analytical process.

Above all, your methodology section should clearly make the case for why you chose the methods you did. This is especially true if you did not take the most standard approach to your topic. In this case, discuss why other methods were not suitable for your objectives, and show how this approach contributes new knowledge or understanding.

In any case, it should be overwhelmingly clear to your reader that you set yourself up for success in terms of your methodology’s design. Show how your methods should lead to results that are valid and reliable, while leaving the analysis of the meaning, importance, and relevance of your results for your discussion section .

• Quantitative: Lab-based experiments cannot always accurately simulate real-life situations and behaviors, but they are effective for testing causal relationships between variables .
• Qualitative: Unstructured interviews usually produce results that cannot be generalized beyond the sample group , but they provide a more in-depth understanding of participants’ perceptions, motivations, and emotions.
• Mixed methods: Despite issues systematically comparing differing types of data, a solely quantitative study would not sufficiently incorporate the lived experience of each participant, while a solely qualitative study would be insufficiently generalizable.

Remember that your aim is not just to describe your methods, but to show how and why you applied them. Again, it’s critical to demonstrate that your research was rigorously conducted and can be replicated.

1. Focus on your objectives and research questions

The methodology section should clearly show why your methods suit your objectives and convince the reader that you chose the best possible approach to answering your problem statement and research questions .

2. Cite relevant sources

Your methodology can be strengthened by referencing existing research in your field. This can help you to:

• Show that you followed established practice for your type of research
• Discuss how you decided on your approach by evaluating existing research
• Present a novel methodological approach to address a gap in the literature

3. Write for your audience

Consider how much information you need to give, and avoid getting too lengthy. If you are using methods that are standard for your discipline, you probably don’t need to give a lot of background or justification.

Regardless, your methodology should be a clear, well-structured text that makes an argument for your approach, not just a list of technical details and procedures.

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

• Normal distribution
• Measures of central tendency
• Chi square tests
• Confidence interval
• Quartiles & Quantiles

Methodology

• Cluster sampling
• Stratified sampling
• Thematic analysis
• Cohort study
• Peer review
• Ethnography

Research bias

• Implicit bias
• Cognitive bias
• Conformity bias
• Hawthorne effect
• Availability heuristic
• Attrition bias

Methodology refers to the overarching strategy and rationale of your research project . It involves studying the methods used in your field and the theories or principles behind them, in order to develop an approach that matches your objectives.

Methods are the specific tools and procedures you use to collect and analyze data (for example, experiments, surveys , and statistical tests ).

In shorter scientific papers, where the aim is to report the findings of a specific study, you might simply describe what you did in a methods section .

In a longer or more complex research project, such as a thesis or dissertation , you will probably include a methodology section , where you explain your approach to answering the research questions and cite relevant sources to support your choice of methods.

In a scientific paper, the methodology always comes after the introduction and before the results , discussion and conclusion . The same basic structure also applies to a thesis, dissertation , or research proposal .

Depending on the length and type of document, you might also include a literature review or theoretical framework before the methodology.

Quantitative research deals with numbers and statistics, while qualitative research deals with words and meanings.

Quantitative methods allow you to systematically measure variables and test hypotheses . Qualitative methods allow you to explore concepts and experiences in more detail.

Reliability and validity are both about how well a method measures something:

• Reliability refers to the  consistency of a measure (whether the results can be reproduced under the same conditions).
• Validity   refers to the  accuracy of a measure (whether the results really do represent what they are supposed to measure).

If you are doing experimental research, you also have to consider the internal and external validity of your experiment.

A sample is a subset of individuals from a larger population . Sampling means selecting the group that you will actually collect data from in your research. For example, if you are researching the opinions of students in your university, you could survey a sample of 100 students.

In statistics, sampling allows you to test a hypothesis about the characteristics of a population.

Cite this Scribbr article

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

McCombes, S. & George, T. (2023, November 20). What Is a Research Methodology? | Steps & Tips. Scribbr. Retrieved June 12, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/dissertation/methodology/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

Other students also liked, what is a theoretical framework | guide to organizing, what is a research design | types, guide & examples, qualitative vs. quantitative research | differences, examples & methods, what is your plagiarism score.

Methodologies

Barry Mauer and John Venecek

We discuss the following topics on this page:

Example [Marxist Theory Methodologies]

Example [critical race theory methodologies].

We also provide the following activity on this page:

Exercises [Discussion]

Methodologies (not to be confused with methods, which we discuss on the next page)   are linked to literary theories. Methodologies are necessary to working with theories. They serve as the interfaces between theory (purely conceptual) and praxis (practical application). Methodologies consist of tools and lines of investigation: sets of practices and propositions about texts and the world. Researchers using Marxist literary criticism adopt methodologies that seek to understand literature and its relationship to the world by looking to material forces like labor, ownership, and technology. These researchers also seek to understand authors not as inspired geniuses but as people whose lives and work are shaped by social, economic, and historical forces. Daniel Hartley, in his “Marxist Literary Criticism: An Introductory Reading Guide” (2018) describes some areas of inquiry and methodologies used by Marxist literary critics.

Areas of inquiry:

• Anthropological:  investigates the social functions of art
• Political:  investigates the link between literature and the political fortunes of classes and political systems such as capitalism and socialism
• Ideological:  investigates the link between literature and identity

Methodologies:

• Genetic Structuralism:  “Lucien Goldmann . . . examined the structure of literary texts to discover the degree to which it embodied the ‘world vision’ of the class to which the writer belonged. For Goldmann literary works are the product, not of individuals, but of the ‘transindividual mental structures’ of specific social groups. These ‘mental structures’ or ‘world visions’ are themselves understood as ideological constructions produced by specific historical conjunctures.”
• Dialectical criticism:  Emphasizes “reflexivity and totality: it stresses the way in which ‘the [critic’s] mind must deal with its own thought process just as much as with the material it works on’ (Fredric Jameson); it holds that literary works internalise social forms, situations and structures, yet simultaneously refuse them (thereby generating a critical negativity that resists vulgar economic or political reductionism); and it takes the mediated (not external or abstract) social totality as its ultimate critical purview.”

Jada, in her research about James Baldwin’s story, “Sonny’s Blues,” uses both Marxist theory and Critical Race Theory (CRT). Below are some of the methodologies that CRT researchers use.

Critical Race Theorists use a variety of methodologies, including

• Interest convergence: investigates whether marginalized groups only achieve progress when dominant groups benefit as well
• Intersectional theory: investigates how multiple factors of advantage and disadvantage around race, gender, ethnicity, religion, etc. operate together in complex ways
• Radical critique of the law: investigates how the law has historically been used to marginalize particular groups, such as black people, while recognizing that legal efforts are important to achieve emancipation and civil rights
• Social constructivism: investigates how race is socially constructed (rather than biologically grounded)
• Standpoint epistemology: investigates how knowledge relates to individual experience and social position
• Structural determinism: investigates how structures of thought and of organizations determine social outcomes

Wikipedia can help with finding methodologies. For instance, the page about Cultural Studies notes that the primary areas of study are about power , which consists of many other things (such as ideology, social relations, etc.) and discourse (the languages and world views found in and around texts). You can follow the citation links in wikipedia to research each methodology. Better still, use your library. Cultural Studies has subdivisions, which include New Historicism, Multiculturalism, and Postcolonialism. One methodology of Cultural Studies is radical contextualism, which “rejects universal accounts of cultural practices, meanings, and identities.”

Some psychological theories, such as Freudian and Lacanian, use a set of methodologies referred to as “symptomatic.” The analogy is to medicine and the ways in which doctors seek to diagnose a patient’s condition based on their presenting symptoms. Since many medical conditions can produce similar symptoms (for instance, chest congestion can be caused by a cold, the flu, COVID, and many other conditions), a doctor has to look closely at a set of symptoms, use their knowledge of various medical conditions and how they present, and reason abductively (from effects to causes) to figure out what the underlying condition is. Similarly, a Freudian or Lacanian reading of a literary text will look for clues related to the characters, narrator, author, or audience to determine what underlying conditions are present. These conditions may be cognitive (beliefs), affective (feelings), or interpersonal (relationships). They also can be a combination of these things.

Theorists don’t always label their methodologies as such. You need to look into each theory to see what positions the theorists take, what they study, and why. The “methods” part is about how they study. Not every methodology will work with every theory. You will need to do some research to discover with methodologies are most appropriate for your project.

• What methodologies will you be using for your paper? Why did you make this selection over others? If you haven’t made a selection yet, which methodologies are you considering?
• What specific concepts from the methodologies are you most interested in exploring in relation to your chosen literary work?
• What is your plan for researching your methodologies?
• When you do your assignments for this week about theory and methodology, you should refer to your earlier work – the literature you chose, the problem, etc. We are in building mode. Recall that the methodology relates directly to the theory. You may need to do some additional reading to identify methodologies and theories.
• If there are any elements of your assignment that need clarification, please list them.
• What was the most important lesson you learned from this page? What point was confusing or difficult to understand?

Methodologies Copyright © 2021 by Barry Mauer and John Venecek is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

Research Methods and Design

• Action Research
• Case Study Design

Literature Review

• Quantitative Research Methods
• Qualitative Research Methods
• Mixed Methods Study
• Indigenous Research and Ethics This link opens in a new window
• Identifying Empirical Research Articles This link opens in a new window
• Research Ethics and Quality
• Data Literacy
• Get Help with Writing Assignments

A literature review is a discussion of the literature (aka. the "research" or "scholarship") surrounding a certain topic. A good literature review doesn't simply summarize the existing material, but provides thoughtful synthesis and analysis. The purpose of a literature review is to orient your own work within an existing body of knowledge. A literature review may be written as a standalone piece or be included in a larger body of work.

You can read more about literature reviews, what they entail, and how to write one, using the resources below. 

Am I the only one struggling to write a literature review?

Dr. Zina O'Leary explains the misconceptions and struggles students often have with writing a literature review. She also provides step-by-step guidance on writing a persuasive literature review.

An Introduction to Literature Reviews

Dr. Eric Jensen, Professor of Sociology at the University of Warwick, and Dr. Charles Laurie, Director of Research at Verisk Maplecroft, explain how to write a literature review, and why researchers need to do so. Literature reviews can be stand-alone research or part of a larger project. They communicate the state of academic knowledge on a given topic, specifically detailing what is still unknown.

This is the first video in a whole series about literature reviews. You can find the rest of the series in our SAGE database, Research Methods:

Videos covering research methods and statistics

Identify Themes and Gaps in Literature (with real examples) | Scribbr

Finding connections between sources is key to organizing the arguments and structure of a good literature review. In this video, you'll learn how to identify themes, debates, and gaps between sources, using examples from real papers.

4 Tips for Writing a Literature Review's Intro, Body, and Conclusion | Scribbr

While each review will be unique in its structure--based on both the existing body of both literature and the overall goals of your own paper, dissertation, or research--this video from Scribbr does a good job simplifying the goals of writing a literature review for those who are new to the process. In this video, you’ll learn what to include in each section, as well as 4 tips for the main body illustrated with an example.

• Literature Review This chapter in SAGE's Encyclopedia of Research Design describes the types of literature reviews and scientific standards for conducting literature reviews.
• UNC Writing Center: Literature Reviews This handout from the Writing Center at UNC will explain what literature reviews are and offer insights into the form and construction of literature reviews in the humanities, social sciences, and sciences.
• Purdue OWL: Writing a Literature Review The overview of literature reviews comes from Purdue's Online Writing Lab. It explains the basic why, what, and how of writing a literature review.

Organizational Tools for Literature Reviews

One of the most daunting aspects of writing a literature review is organizing your research. There are a variety of strategies that you can use to help you in this task. We've highlighted just a few ways writers keep track of all that information! You can use a combination of these tools or come up with your own organizational process. The key is choosing something that works with your own learning style.

Citation Managers

Citation managers are great tools, in general, for organizing research, but can be especially helpful when writing a literature review. You can keep all of your research in one place, take notes, and organize your materials into different folders or categories. Read more about citations managers here:

• Manage Citations & Sources

Concept Mapping

Some writers use concept mapping (sometimes called flow or bubble charts or "mind maps") to help them visualize the ways in which the research they found connects.

There is no right or wrong way to make a concept map. There are a variety of online tools that can help you create a concept map or you can simply put pen to paper. To read more about concept mapping, take a look at the following help guides:

• Using Concept Maps From Williams College's guide, Literature Review: A Self-guided Tutorial

Synthesis Matrix

A synthesis matrix is is a chart you can use to help you organize your research into thematic categories. By organizing your research into a matrix, like the examples below, can help you visualize the ways in which your sources connect. 

• Walden University Writing Center: Literature Review Matrix Find a variety of literature review matrix examples and templates from Walden University.
• Writing A Literature Review and Using a Synthesis Matrix An example synthesis matrix created by NC State University Writing and Speaking Tutorial Service Tutors. If you would like a copy of this synthesis matrix in a different format, like a Word document, please ask a librarian. CC-BY-SA 3.0
• << Previous: Case Study Design
• Next: Quantitative Research Methods >>
• Last Updated: May 7, 2024 9:51 AM

CityU Home - CityU Catalog

Ohio State nav bar

The Ohio State University

• BuckeyeLink
• Find People
• Search Ohio State

• Ohio State University Libraries
• Research Guides

Evidence Synthesis in the Social Sciences

• Narrative Reviews
• About this guide
• Systematic Reviews
• Scoping Reviews
• Rapid Reviews
• Meta Analysis
• Umbrella Reviews
• Develop a research question
• Select databases
• Write a search strategy
• Develop and register a protocol
• Article screening
• Data extraction
• Analysis and results

Narrative reviews are not actually systematic reviews...

...but we are including them in this guide because these reviews are often mistakenly called 'systematic reviews', so we feel they should be discussed.  These are also called 'literature reviews' and while they may include a large review of the literature in a given research area, the methodology used is not considered 'systematic'.  These projects may or may not include comprehensive search strategies and quality assessments and analysis can be exploratory, chronological, conceptual, thematic or other. 

One similar type of review that may be relevant, especially for graduate and postgraduate students is something called a  'systematized review'  which are reviews that attempt to include elements of a systematic review, but stop short of following a fully systematic methodology.

Narrative Literature Reviews

According to The SAGE Encyclopedia of Communication Research Methods , "A literature review is a thorough and critical evaluation of previous research on a topic of interest to the author. The review summarizes a particular area of research that helps to explain why an author is interested in a particular topic. A literature review is primarily associated with formal academic writing, such as a master’s thesis, dissertation, or a peer-reviewed journal article. It is commonly part of a proposal written by someone pursuing a thesis or dissertation, known as a research prospectus. A literature review is also a common writing assignment in undergraduate- and graduate-level courses. An effective review of literature will define key terminology, identify a theoretical framework for the topic being addressed, and describe relevant past research in support of a research question or hypothesis.

A narrative literature review provides a synthesis or examination of the literature by considering issues and the development of the research over time. Narrative literature reviews can be contrasted with meta-analysis or the quantitative review or synthesis of literature."

• SAGE Research Methods Includes the SAGE encyclopedia of communication research methods and many other relevant resources explaining a wide range of research methods.

Differences between systematic and literature reviews

Kysh, Lynn (2013): Difference between a systematic review and a literature review. figshare. Poster. https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.766364.v1 

Literature Review Tutorials

• Conducting a Systematic Literature Review
• Literature Reviews: An Overview

Further Reading

• Systematic and other reviews: Criteria and complexities
• A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies

Business & Economics Librarian

• << Previous: Types of evidence synthesis
• Next: Systematic Reviews >>

© The Ohio State University - University Libraries 1858 Neil Avenue Mall, Columbus, OH 43210 Phone: (614) 292-OSUL (6785) | Fax: (614) 292-9101

Request an alternate format of this page | Accessibility | Privacy Policy

Print Page Login to LibApps

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: Jan 4, 2024 10:52 AM
• URL: https://guides.library.yale.edu/YSNDoctoral

Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website: https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings .

Login Alert

• > The Cambridge Handbook of Research Methods and Statistics for the Social and Behavioral Sciences
• > Literature Review

Book contents

• The Cambridge Handbook of Research Methods and Statistics for the Social and Behavioral Sciences
• Cambridge Handbooks in Psychology
• Copyright page
• Contributors
• Part I From Idea to Reality: The Basics of Research
• 1 Promises and Pitfalls of Theory
• 2 Research Ethics for the Social and Behavioral Sciences
• 3 Getting Good Ideas and Making the Most of Them
• 4 Literature Review
• 5 Choosing a Research Design
• 6 Building the Study
• 7 Analyzing Data
• 8 Writing the Paper
• Part II The Building Blocks of a Study
• Part III Data Collection
• Part IV Statistical Approaches
• Part V Tips for a Successful Research Career

4 - Literature Review

from Part I - From Idea to Reality: The Basics of Research

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 May 2023

A literature review is a survey of scholarly sources that establishes familiarity with and an understanding of current research in a particular field. It includes a critical analysis of the relationship among different works, seeking a synthesis and an explanation of gaps, while relating findings to the project at hand. It also serves as a foundational aspect of a well-grounded thesis or dissertation, reveals gaps in a specific field, and establishes credibility and need for those applying for a grant. The enormous amount of textual information necessitates the development of tools to help researchers effectively and efficiently process huge amounts of data and quickly search, classify, and assess their relevance. This chapter presents an assessable guide to writing a comprehensive review of literature. It begins with a discussion of the purpose of the literature review and then presents steps to conduct an organized, relevant review.

Access options

Save book to kindle.

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle .

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service .

• Literature Review
• By Rachel Adams Goertel
• Edited by Austin Lee Nichols , Central European University, Vienna , John Edlund , Rochester Institute of Technology, New York
• Book: The Cambridge Handbook of Research Methods and Statistics for the Social and Behavioral Sciences
• Online publication: 25 May 2023
• Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009010054.005

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox .

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive .

• Master's programmes in English
• For exchange students
• PhD opportunities
• All programmes of study
• Language requirements
• Application process
• Academic calendar
• NTNU research
• Research excellence
• Strategic research areas
• Innovation resources
• Student in Trondheim
• Student in Gjøvik
• Student in Ålesund
• For researchers
• Life and housing
• Faculties and departments
• International researcher support

Språkvelger

Course - research methods in literature studies - litt3001, course-details-portlet, litt3001 - research methods in literature studies, examination arrangement.

Examination arrangement: Home examination Grade: Letter grades

Course content

This course will provide insight into central methodological issues within the field of literature studies. A primary goal is to give students an understanding of the diversity of methods that characterizes literary criticism. The course aims to train students in developing research questions and to assess the applicability and relevance of different research methods, thus providing them with the foundation for developing individual master's projects. The course will provide students with understanding of the connections between critical perspectives and methodological approaches.

Among others, the course will discuss the following topics:

- Methods for examining the relationship between literature and society, literature and history, author and text, and questions related to the literary canon

- Methods for examining the relationship between literature and form, genre and thematics

- Methods for examining the relationship between literature, reading and reception

- The use of physical and digital archives

- Methods for researching literature and education

Learning outcome

Candidates who have passed this course

• have the knowledge to evaluate the applicability and relevance of different research methods in the research of others as well as in their own
• can develop research questions in literature studies and at the same time describe what methods may be applicable to examine various problems
• can discuss how different approaches to literature may result in different interpretations of the same text
• are able to apply terms in, and knowledge of, literature studies in practical work with literature
• are able to find and evaluate literary criticism

Learning methods and activities

Lectures/seminars. The course is taught in English or Norwegian. Students are expected to participate actively in the lectures/seminars for example by presentations, comments and other contributions. Students are required to use the course learning platform regularly.

Obligatory assignment: A written assignment in groups where students discuss different methodological choices in working with a literary text. An approved obligatory assignment is valid for 2 semesters (the semester in which the approval is given, plus the following semester).

Compulsory assignments

• 1 written assignment (in groups)

Further on evaluation

The course is assessed by a written home examination (approx. 4000 words, 5 days). The exam must be answered in Norwegian or English.

Recommended previous knowledge

Relevant undergraduate courses in literature.

Required previous knowledge

At least 7.5 credits (studiepoeng) of courses in literature at ENG2000-, FRA2000-, NORD2000-, or TYSK2000-level.

Course materials

A pensum consisting of 700-800 pages of articles/chapter excerpts focused on research methods, plus a limited selection of short literary texts. Curriculum/reading list will be made available at the beginning of the semester.

Credit reductions

• Blackboard - AUTUMN-2021

Version: 1 Credits:  7.5 SP Study level: Second degree level

Term no.: 1 Teaching semester:  AUTUMN 2024

Language of instruction: Norwegian

Location: Trondheim

• English Literature
• French Literature
• Comparative Literature
• Scandinavian Language and Literature
• Scandinavian Literature
• German Literature
• Silje Haugen Warberg

Department with academic responsibility Department of Language and Literature

Examination

Examination arrangement: home examination.

• * The location (room) for a written examination is published 3 days before examination date. If more than one room is listed, you will find your room at Studentweb.

For more information regarding registration for examination and examination procedures, see "Innsida - Exams"

More on examinations at NTNU

Research Methods: Literature Reviews

• Annotated Bibliographies
• Literature Reviews
• Scoping Reviews
• Systematic Reviews
• Scholarship of Teaching and Learning
• Persuasive Arguments
• Subject Specific Methodology

A literature review involves researching, reading, analyzing, evaluating, and summarizing scholarly literature (typically journals and articles) about a specific topic. The results of a literature review may be an entire report or article OR may be part of a article, thesis, dissertation, or grant proposal. A literature review helps the author learn about the history and nature of their topic, and identify research gaps and problems.

Steps & Elements

Problem formulation

• Determine your topic and its components by asking a question
• Research: locate literature related to your topic to identify the gap(s) that can be addressed
• Read: read the articles or other sources of information
• Analyze: assess the findings for relevancy
• Evaluating: determine how the article are relevant to your research and what are the key findings
• Synthesis: write about the key findings and how it is relevant to your research

Elements of a Literature Review

• Summarize subject, issue or theory under consideration, along with objectives of the review
• Divide works under review into categories (e.g. those in support of a particular position, those against, those offering alternative theories entirely)
• Explain how each work is similar to and how it varies from the others
• Conclude 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 an area of research

Writing a Literature Review Resources

• How to Write a Literature Review From the Wesleyan University Library
• Write a Literature Review From the University of California Santa Cruz Library. A Brief overview of a literature review, includes a list of stages for writing a lit review.
• Literature Reviews From the University of North Carolina Writing Center. Detailed information about writing a literature review.
• Undertaking a literature review: a step-by-step approach Cronin, P., Ryan, F., & Coughan, M. (2008). Undertaking a literature review: A step-by-step approach. British Journal of Nursing, 17(1), p.38-43

Literature Review Tutorial

• << Previous: Annotated Bibliographies
• Next: Scoping Reviews >>
• Last Updated: Feb 29, 2024 12:00 PM
• URL: https://guides.auraria.edu/researchmethods

1100 Lawrence Street Denver, CO 80204 303-315-7700 Ask Us Directions

Libraries | Research Guides

Literature reviews, what is a literature review, learning more about how to do a literature review.

• Planning the Review
• The Research Question
• Choosing Where to Search
• Organizing the Review
• Writing the Review

A literature review is a review and synthesis of existing research on a topic or research question. A literature review is meant to analyze the scholarly literature, make connections across writings and identify strengths, weaknesses, trends, and missing conversations. A literature review should address different aspects of a topic as it relates to your research question. A literature review goes beyond a description or summary of the literature you have read. 

• Sage Research Methods Core Collection This link opens in a new window SAGE Research Methods supports research at all levels by providing material to guide users through every step of the research process. SAGE Research Methods is the ultimate methods library with more than 1000 books, reference works, journal articles, and instructional videos by world-leading academics from across the social sciences, including the largest collection of qualitative methods books available online from any scholarly publisher. – Publisher

• Next: Planning the Review >>
• Last Updated: May 2, 2024 10:39 AM
• URL: https://libguides.northwestern.edu/literaturereviews

• USC Libraries
• Research Guides

Organizing Your Social Sciences Research Paper

• 6. The Methodology
• 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

The methods section describes actions taken to investigate a research problem and the rationale for the application of specific procedures or techniques used to identify, select, process, and analyze information applied to understanding the problem, thereby, allowing the reader to critically evaluate a study’s overall validity and reliability. The methodology section of a research paper answers two main questions: How was the data collected or generated? And, how was it analyzed? The writing should be direct and precise and always written in the past tense.

Kallet, Richard H. "How to Write the Methods Section of a Research Paper." Respiratory Care 49 (October 2004): 1229-1232.

Importance of a Good Methodology Section

You must explain how you obtained and analyzed your results for the following reasons:

• Readers need to know how the data was obtained because the method you chose affects the results and, by extension, how you interpreted their significance in the discussion section of your paper.
• Methodology is crucial for any branch of scholarship because an unreliable method produces unreliable results and, as a consequence, undermines the value of your analysis of the findings.
• In most cases, there are a variety of different methods you can choose to investigate a research problem. The methodology section of your paper should clearly articulate the reasons why you have chosen a particular procedure or technique.
• The reader wants to know that the data was collected or generated in a way that is consistent with accepted practice in the field of study. For example, if you are using a multiple choice questionnaire, readers need to know that it offered your respondents a reasonable range of answers to choose from.
• The method must be appropriate to fulfilling the overall aims of the study. For example, you need to ensure that you have a large enough sample size to be able to generalize and make recommendations based upon the findings.
• The methodology should discuss the problems that were anticipated and the steps you took to prevent them from occurring. For any problems that do arise, you must describe the ways in which they were minimized or why these problems do not impact in any meaningful way your interpretation of the findings.
• In the social and behavioral sciences, it is important to always provide sufficient information to allow other researchers to adopt or replicate your methodology. This information is particularly important when a new method has been developed or an innovative use of an existing method is utilized.

Bem, Daryl J. Writing the Empirical Journal Article. Psychology Writing Center. University of Washington; Denscombe, Martyn. The Good Research Guide: For Small-Scale Social Research Projects . 5th edition. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press, 2014; Lunenburg, Frederick C. Writing a Successful Thesis or Dissertation: Tips and Strategies for Students in the Social and Behavioral Sciences . Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, 2008.

Structure and Writing Style

I.  Groups of Research Methods

There are two main groups of research methods in the social sciences:

• The e mpirical-analytical group approaches the study of social sciences in a similar manner that researchers study the natural sciences . This type of research focuses on objective knowledge, research questions that can be answered yes or no, and operational definitions of variables to be measured. The empirical-analytical group employs deductive reasoning that uses existing theory as a foundation for formulating hypotheses that need to be tested. This approach is focused on explanation.
• The i nterpretative group of methods is focused on understanding phenomenon in a comprehensive, holistic way . Interpretive methods focus on analytically disclosing the meaning-making practices of human subjects [the why, how, or by what means people do what they do], while showing how those practices arrange so that it can be used to generate observable outcomes. Interpretive methods allow you to recognize your connection to the phenomena under investigation. However, the interpretative group requires careful examination of variables because it focuses more on subjective knowledge.

II.  Content

The introduction to your methodology section should begin by restating the research problem and underlying assumptions underpinning your study. This is followed by situating the methods you used to gather, analyze, and process information within the overall “tradition” of your field of study and within the particular research design you have chosen to study the problem. If the method you choose lies outside of the tradition of your field [i.e., your review of the literature demonstrates that the method is not commonly used], provide a justification for how your choice of methods specifically addresses the research problem in ways that have not been utilized in prior studies.

The remainder of your methodology section should describe the following:

• Decisions made in selecting the data you have analyzed or, in the case of qualitative research, the subjects and research setting you have examined,
• Tools and methods used to identify and collect information, and how you identified relevant variables,
• The ways in which you processed the data and the procedures you used to analyze that data, and
• The specific research tools or strategies that you utilized to study the underlying hypothesis and research questions.

In addition, an effectively written methodology section should:

• Introduce the overall methodological approach for investigating your research problem . Is your study qualitative or quantitative or a combination of both (mixed method)? Are you going to take a special approach, such as action research, or a more neutral stance?
• Indicate how the approach fits the overall research design . Your methods for gathering data should have a clear connection to your research problem. In other words, make sure that your methods will actually address the problem. One of the most common deficiencies found in research papers is that the proposed methodology is not suitable to achieving the stated objective of your paper.
• Describe the specific methods of data collection you are going to use , such as, surveys, interviews, questionnaires, observation, archival research. If you are analyzing existing data, such as a data set or archival documents, describe how it was originally created or gathered and by whom. Also be sure to explain how older data is still relevant to investigating the current research problem.
• Explain how you intend to analyze your results . Will you use statistical analysis? Will you use specific theoretical perspectives to help you analyze a text or explain observed behaviors? Describe how you plan to obtain an accurate assessment of relationships, patterns, trends, distributions, and possible contradictions found in the data.
• Provide background and a rationale for methodologies that are unfamiliar for your readers . Very often in the social sciences, research problems and the methods for investigating them require more explanation/rationale than widely accepted rules governing the natural and physical sciences. Be clear and concise in your explanation.
• Provide a justification for subject selection and sampling procedure . For instance, if you propose to conduct interviews, how do you intend to select the sample population? If you are analyzing texts, which texts have you chosen, and why? If you are using statistics, why is this set of data being used? If other data sources exist, explain why the data you chose is most appropriate to addressing the research problem.
• Provide a justification for case study selection . A common method of analyzing research problems in the social sciences is to analyze specific cases. These can be a person, place, event, phenomenon, or other type of subject of analysis that are either examined as a singular topic of in-depth investigation or multiple topics of investigation studied for the purpose of comparing or contrasting findings. In either method, you should explain why a case or cases were chosen and how they specifically relate to the research problem.
• Describe potential limitations . Are there any practical limitations that could affect your data collection? How will you attempt to control for potential confounding variables and errors? If your methodology may lead to problems you can anticipate, state this openly and show why pursuing this methodology outweighs the risk of these problems cropping up.

NOTE:   Once you have written all of the elements of the methods section, subsequent revisions should focus on how to present those elements as clearly and as logically as possibly. The description of how you prepared to study the research problem, how you gathered the data, and the protocol for analyzing the data should be organized chronologically. For clarity, when a large amount of detail must be presented, information should be presented in sub-sections according to topic. If necessary, consider using appendices for raw data.

ANOTHER NOTE: If you are conducting a qualitative analysis of a research problem , the methodology section generally requires a more elaborate description of the methods used as well as an explanation of the processes applied to gathering and analyzing of data than is generally required for studies using quantitative methods. Because you are the primary instrument for generating the data [e.g., through interviews or observations], the process for collecting that data has a significantly greater impact on producing the findings. Therefore, qualitative research requires a more detailed description of the methods used.

YET ANOTHER NOTE:   If your study involves interviews, observations, or other qualitative techniques involving human subjects , you may be required to obtain approval from the university's Office for the Protection of Research Subjects before beginning your research. This is not a common procedure for most undergraduate level student research assignments. However, i f your professor states you need approval, you must include a statement in your methods section that you received official endorsement and adequate informed consent from the office and that there was a clear assessment and minimization of risks to participants and to the university. This statement informs the reader that your study was conducted in an ethical and responsible manner. In some cases, the approval notice is included as an appendix to your paper.

III.  Problems to Avoid

Irrelevant Detail The methodology section of your paper should be thorough but concise. Do not provide any background information that does not directly help the reader understand why a particular method was chosen, how the data was gathered or obtained, and how the data was analyzed in relation to the research problem [note: analyzed, not interpreted! Save how you interpreted the findings for the discussion section]. With this in mind, the page length of your methods section will generally be less than any other section of your paper except the conclusion.

Unnecessary Explanation of Basic Procedures Remember that you are not writing a how-to guide about a particular method. You should make the assumption that readers possess a basic understanding of how to investigate the research problem on their own and, therefore, you do not have to go into great detail about specific methodological procedures. The focus should be on how you applied a method , not on the mechanics of doing a method. An exception to this rule is if you select an unconventional methodological approach; if this is the case, be sure to explain why this approach was chosen and how it enhances the overall process of discovery.

Problem Blindness It is almost a given that you will encounter problems when collecting or generating your data, or, gaps will exist in existing data or archival materials. Do not ignore these problems or pretend they did not occur. Often, documenting how you overcame obstacles can form an interesting part of the methodology. It demonstrates to the reader that you can provide a cogent rationale for the decisions you made to minimize the impact of any problems that arose.

Literature Review Just as the literature review section of your paper provides an overview of sources you have examined while researching a particular topic, the methodology section should cite any sources that informed your choice and application of a particular method [i.e., the choice of a survey should include any citations to the works you used to help construct the survey].

It’s More than Sources of Information! A description of a research study's method should not be confused with a description of the sources of information. Such a list of sources is useful in and of itself, especially if it is accompanied by an explanation about the selection and use of the sources. The description of the project's methodology complements a list of sources in that it sets forth the organization and interpretation of information emanating from those sources.

Azevedo, L.F. et al. "How to Write a Scientific Paper: Writing the Methods Section." Revista Portuguesa de Pneumologia 17 (2011): 232-238; Blair Lorrie. “Choosing a Methodology.” In Writing a Graduate Thesis or Dissertation , Teaching Writing Series. (Rotterdam: Sense Publishers 2016), pp. 49-72; Butin, Dan W. The Education Dissertation A Guide for Practitioner Scholars . Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin, 2010; Carter, Susan. Structuring Your Research Thesis . New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2012; Kallet, Richard H. “How to Write the Methods Section of a Research Paper.” Respiratory Care 49 (October 2004):1229-1232; Lunenburg, Frederick C. Writing a Successful Thesis or Dissertation: Tips and Strategies for Students in the Social and Behavioral Sciences . Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, 2008. Methods Section. The Writer’s Handbook. Writing Center. University of Wisconsin, Madison; Rudestam, Kjell Erik and Rae R. Newton. “The Method Chapter: Describing Your Research Plan.” In Surviving Your Dissertation: A Comprehensive Guide to Content and Process . (Thousand Oaks, Sage Publications, 2015), pp. 87-115; What is Interpretive Research. Institute of Public and International Affairs, University of Utah; Writing the Experimental Report: Methods, Results, and Discussion. The Writing Lab and The OWL. Purdue University; Methods and Materials. The Structure, Format, Content, and Style of a Journal-Style Scientific Paper. Department of Biology. Bates College.

Writing Tip

Statistical Designs and Tests? Do Not Fear Them!

Don't avoid using a quantitative approach to analyzing your research problem just because you fear the idea of applying statistical designs and tests. A qualitative approach, such as conducting interviews or content analysis of archival texts, can yield exciting new insights about a research problem, but it should not be undertaken simply because you have a disdain for running a simple regression. A well designed quantitative research study can often be accomplished in very clear and direct ways, whereas, a similar study of a qualitative nature usually requires considerable time to analyze large volumes of data and a tremendous burden to create new paths for analysis where previously no path associated with your research problem had existed.

To locate data and statistics, GO HERE .

Another Writing Tip

Knowing the Relationship Between Theories and Methods

There can be multiple meaning associated with the term "theories" and the term "methods" in social sciences research. A helpful way to delineate between them is to understand "theories" as representing different ways of characterizing the social world when you research it and "methods" as representing different ways of generating and analyzing data about that social world. Framed in this way, all empirical social sciences research involves theories and methods, whether they are stated explicitly or not. However, while theories and methods are often related, it is important that, as a researcher, you deliberately separate them in order to avoid your theories playing a disproportionate role in shaping what outcomes your chosen methods produce.

Introspectively engage in an ongoing dialectic between the application of theories and methods to help enable you to use the outcomes from your methods to interrogate and develop new theories, or ways of framing conceptually the research problem. This is how scholarship grows and branches out into new intellectual territory.

Reynolds, R. Larry. Ways of Knowing. Alternative Microeconomics . Part 1, Chapter 3. Boise State University; The Theory-Method Relationship. S-Cool Revision. United Kingdom.

Yet Another Writing Tip

Methods and the Methodology

Do not confuse the terms "methods" and "methodology." As Schneider notes, a method refers to the technical steps taken to do research . Descriptions of methods usually include defining and stating why you have chosen specific techniques to investigate a research problem, followed by an outline of the procedures you used to systematically select, gather, and process the data [remember to always save the interpretation of data for the discussion section of your paper].

The methodology refers to a discussion of the underlying reasoning why particular methods were used . This discussion includes describing the theoretical concepts that inform the choice of methods to be applied, placing the choice of methods within the more general nature of academic work, and reviewing its relevance to examining the research problem. The methodology section also includes a thorough review of the methods other scholars have used to study the topic.

Bryman, Alan. "Of Methods and Methodology." Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management: An International Journal 3 (2008): 159-168; Schneider, Florian. “What's in a Methodology: The Difference between Method, Methodology, and Theory…and How to Get the Balance Right?” PoliticsEastAsia.com. Chinese Department, University of Leiden, Netherlands.

• << Previous: Scholarly vs. Popular Publications
• Next: Qualitative Methods >>
• Last Updated: Jun 12, 2024 8:53 AM
• URL: https://libguides.usc.edu/writingguide

Graduate research methods in social work

(3 reviews)

Matt DeCarlo, La Salle University

Cory Cummings, Nazareth University

Kate Agnelli, Virginia Commonwealth University

Copyright Year: 2021

ISBN 13: 9781949373219

Publisher: Open Social Work Education

Language: English

Formats Available

Conditions of use.

Learn more about reviews.

Reviewed by Erin Boyce, Full Time Faculty, Metropolitan State University of Denver on 6/3/24

This book provides a strong comprehensive overview of each step in the research & evaluation process for students, clearly outlining each step with clarity and direction. read more

Comprehensiveness rating: 5 see less

This book provides a strong comprehensive overview of each step in the research & evaluation process for students, clearly outlining each step with clarity and direction.

Content Accuracy rating: 5

Content in this text is accurate, needing no clarification or added information, and is presented in an unbiased manner.

Relevance/Longevity rating: 5

The relevance of this text is it's greatest strength. It is one of the strongtest research texts I've encountered, and while change always comes this text will survive new iterations of research, only needing minimal and straightforward updates.

Clarity rating: 5

As a research text, this is extremely user friendly. It is easy to read, direct, and does not interfere with student understanding. Students come away with a good understanding of the concepts from this text, and many continue to use it beyond the classroom.

Consistency rating: 5

This text is consistent with research methods and frameworks and stands alone among social work research texts as the most accessbile due to it's status as an OER and as a social work textbook.

Modularity rating: 5

This text is easily divisible into smaller readings, it works great for courses in which assignments are scaffolded to move students through the research process.

Organization/Structure/Flow rating: 5

This text is organized to walk the student through the research process from start to finish, and is easily adjusted for different teaching styles.

Interface rating: 5

This text has no significant interface issues, the readings, links, and images are easily accessbile and are presented in a way that does not interfere with student learning.

Grammatical Errors rating: 5

This text is well edited and formatted.

Cultural Relevance rating: 5

This text is culturally relevant, addresses issues of cultural relevance to social work, and highlights the role of social work values within the realm of social work research.

This is one of the best research texts I've encounted in over a decade of teaching. It is so easily digested and presents information in a direct and understandable way, and is one of the best texts for those teaching graduate level research for social workers. It is an inclusive text that honors the multiple levels of knowledge that our students come to us with, which helps sets it apart. And, the committment throughout the text to social work values and ethics is critical for todays social worker.

Reviewed by Laura Montero, Full-time Lecturer and Course Lead, Metropolitan State University of Denver on 12/23/23

Graduate Research Methods in Social Work by DeCarlo, et al., is a comprehensive and well-structured guide that serves as an invaluable resource for graduate students delving into the intricate world of social work research. The book is divided... read more

Comprehensiveness rating: 4 see less

Graduate Research Methods in Social Work by DeCarlo, et al., is a comprehensive and well-structured guide that serves as an invaluable resource for graduate students delving into the intricate world of social work research. The book is divided into five distinct parts, each carefully curated to provide a step-by-step approach to mastering research methods in the field. Topics covered include an intro to basic research concepts, conceptualization, quantitative & qualitative approaches, as well as research in practice. At 800+ pages, however, the text could be received by students as a bit overwhelming.

Content appears consistent and reliable when compared to similar textbooks in this topic.

The book's well-structured content begins with fundamental concepts, such as the scientific method and evidence-based practice, guiding readers through the initiation of research projects with attention to ethical considerations. It seamlessly transitions to detailed explorations of both quantitative and qualitative methods, covering topics like sampling, measurement, survey design, and various qualitative data collection approaches. Throughout, the authors emphasize ethical responsibilities, cultural respectfulness, and critical thinking. These are crucial concepts we cover in social work and I was pleased to see these being integrated throughout.

The level of the language used is appropriate for graduate-level study.

Book appears to be consistent in the tone and terminology used.

Modularity rating: 4

The images and videos included, help to break up large text blocks.

Topics covered are well-organized and comprehensive. I appreciate the thorough preamble the authors include to situate the role of the social worker within a research context.

Interface rating: 4

When downloaded as a pdf, the book does not begin until page 30+ so it may be a bit difficult to scroll so long for students in order to access the content for which they are searching. Also, making the Table of Contents clickable, would help in navigating this very long textbook.

I did not find any grammatical errors or typos in the pages reviewed.

I appreciate the efforts made to integrate diverse perspectives, voices, and images into the text. The discussion around ethics and cultural considerations in research was nuanced and comprehensive as well.

Overall, the content of the book aligns with established principles of social work research, providing accurate and up-to-date information in a format that is accessible to graduate students and educators in the field.

Reviewed by Elisa Maroney, Professor, Western Oregon University on 1/2/22

With well over 800 pages, this text is beyond comprehensive! read more

With well over 800 pages, this text is beyond comprehensive!

I perused the entire text, but my focus was on "Part 4: Using qualitative methods." This section seems accurate.

As mentioned above, my primary focus was on the qualitative methods section. This section is relevant to the students I teach in interpreting studies (not a social sciences discipline).

This book is well-written and clear.

Navigating this text is easy, because the formatting is consistent

My favorite part of this text is that I can be easily customized, so that I can use the sections on qualitative methods.

The text is well-organized and easy to find and link to related sections in the book.

There are no distracting or confusing features. The book is long; being able to customize makes it easier to navigate.

I did not notice grammatical errors.

The authors offer resources for Afrocentricity for social work practice (among others, including those related to Feminist and Queer methodologies). These are relevant to the field of interpreting studies.

I look forward to adopting this text in my qualitative methods course for graduate students in interpreting studies.

Table of Contents

• 1. Science and social work
• 2. Starting your research project
• 3. Searching the literature
• 4. Critical information literacy
• 5. Writing your literature review
• 6. Research ethics
• 7. Theory and paradigm
• 8. Reasoning and causality
• 9. Writing your research question
• 10. Quantitative sampling
• 11. Quantitative measurement
• 12. Survey design
• 13. Experimental design
• 14. Univariate analysis
• 15. Bivariate analysis
• 16. Reporting quantitative results
• 17. Qualitative data and sampling
• 18. Qualitative data collection
• 19. A survey of approaches to qualitative data analysis
• 20. Quality in qualitative studies: Rigor in research design
• 21. Qualitative research dissemination
• 22. A survey of qualitative designs
• 23. Program evaluation
• 24. Sharing and consuming research

Ancillary Material

About the book.

We designed our book to help graduate social work students through every step of the research process, from conceptualization to dissemination. Our textbook centers cultural humility, information literacy, pragmatism, and an equal emphasis on quantitative and qualitative methods. It includes extensive content on literature reviews, cultural bias and respectfulness, and qualitative methods, in contrast to traditionally used commercial textbooks in social work research.  

Our author team spans across academic, public, and nonprofit social work research. We love research, and we endeavored through our book to make research more engaging, less painful, and easier to understand. Our textbook exercises direct students to apply content as they are reading the book to an original research project. By breaking it down step-by-step, writing in approachable language, as well as using stories from our life, practice, and research experience, our textbook helps professors overcome students’ research methods anxiety and antipathy.  

If you decide to adopt our resource, we ask that you complete this short  Adopter’s Survey  that helps us keep track of our community impact. You can also contact  [email protected]  for a student workbook, homework assignments, slideshows, a draft bank of quiz questions, and a course calendar. 

About the Contributors

Matt DeCarlo , PhD, MSW is an assistant professor in the Department of Social Work at La Salle University. He is the co-founder of Open Social Work (formerly Open Social Work Education), a collaborative project focusing on open education, open science, and open access in social work and higher education. His first open textbook, Scientific Inquiry in Social Work, was the first developed for social work education, and is now in use in over 60 campuses, mostly in the United States. He is a former OER Research Fellow with the OpenEd Group. Prior to his work in OER, Dr. DeCarlo received his PhD from Virginia Commonwealth University and has published on disability policy.

Cory Cummings , Ph.D., LCSW is an assistant professor in the Department of Social Work at Nazareth University. He has practice experience in community mental health, including clinical practice and administration. In addition, Dr. Cummings has volunteered at safety net mental health services agencies and provided support services for individuals and families affected by HIV. In his current position, Dr. Cummings teaches in the BSW program and MSW programs; specifically in the Clinical Practice with Children and Families concentration. Courses that he teaches include research, social work practice, and clinical field seminar. His scholarship focuses on promoting health equity for individuals experiencing symptoms of severe mental illness and improving opportunities to increase quality of life. Dr. Cummings received his PhD from Virginia Commonwealth University.

Kate Agnelli , MSW, is an adjunct professor at VCU’s School of Social Work, teaching masters-level classes on research methods, public policy, and social justice. She also works as a senior legislative analyst with the Joint Legislative Audit and Review Commission (JLARC), a policy research organization reporting to the Virginia General Assembly. Before working for JLARC, Ms. Agnelli worked for several years in government and nonprofit research and program evaluation. In addition, she has several publications in peer-reviewed journals, has presented at national social work conferences, and has served as a reviewer for Social Work Education. She received her MSW from Virginia Commonwealth University.

Contribute to this Page

• Search Menu
• Sign in through your institution
• Advance Articles
• Editor's Choice
• Supplements
• E-Collections
• Virtual Roundtables
• Author Videos
• Author Guidelines
• Submission Site
• Open Access Options
• About The European Journal of Public Health
• About the European Public Health Association
• Editorial Board
• Advertising and Corporate Services
• Journals Career Network
• Self-Archiving Policy
• Terms and Conditions
• Explore Publishing with EJPH
• Journals on Oxford Academic
• Books on Oxford Academic

Article Contents

Introduction, conclusions, recommendations and limitations of the study, supplementary data, data availability.

• < Previous

A systematic review of literature examining the application of a social model of health and wellbeing

• Article contents
• Figures & tables
• Supplementary Data

Rachel Rahman, Caitlin Reid, Philip Kloer, Anna Henchie, Andrew Thomas, Reyer Zwiggelaar, A systematic review of literature examining the application of a social model of health and wellbeing, European Journal of Public Health , Volume 34, Issue 3, June 2024, Pages 467–472, https://doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/ckae008

• Permissions Icon Permissions

Following years of sustained pressure on the UK health service, there is recognition amongst health professionals and stakeholders that current models of healthcare are likely to be inadequate going forward. Therefore, a fundamental review of existing social models of healthcare is needed to ascertain current thinking in this area, and whether there is a need to change perspective on current thinking.

Through a systematic research review, this paper seeks to address how previous literature has conceptualized a social model of healthcare and, how implementation of the models has been evaluated. Analysis and data were extracted from 222 publications and explored the country of origin, methodological approach, and the health and social care contexts which they were set.

The publications predominantly drawn from the USA, UK, Australia, Canada and Europe identified five themes namely: the lack of a clear and unified definition of a social model of health and wellbeing; the need to understand context; the need for cultural change; improved integration and collaboration towards a holistic and person-centred approach; measuring and evaluating the performance of a social model of health.

The review identified a need for a clear definition of a social model of health and wellbeing. Furthermore, consideration is needed on how a model integrates with current models and whether it will act as a descriptive framework or, will be developed into an operational model. The review highlights the importance of engagement with users and partner organizations in the co-creation of a model of healthcare.

Following years of sustained and increasing pressure brought about through inadequate planning and chronic under-resourcing including the unprecedented challenges of the Covid-19 pandemic, the UK NHS is at crisis point. 1 The incidents of chronic disease continue to increase alongside an ageing population who have more complex health and wellbeing needs, whilst recruitment and retention of staff continue to be insufficient to meet these increased demands. 1 Furthermore, the Covid-19 pandemic has only served to exacerbate pressures, resulting in delays in; patient presentation, 2 poor public mental health 3 strain and burnout amongst workforce. 4 However, preceding the pandemic there was already recognition of a need for a change to the current biomedical model of care to better prevent and treat the needs of the population. 5

While it is recognized that demands on the healthcare system are increasing rapidly, the biomedical model used to deal with these issues (which is the current model of healthcare provision in the UK) has largely remained unchanged over the years. The biomedical model takes the perspective that ill-health stems from biological factors and operates on the theory that good health and wellbeing is merely the absence of illness. Application of the model therefore focuses treatment on the management of symptoms and cure of disease from a biological perspective. This suggests that the biomedical approach is mainly reactive in nature and whilst rapid advancements in technology such as diagnostics and robotics have significantly improved patient outcomes and identification of early onset of disease, it does not fully extend into managing the social determinants that can play an important role in the prevention of disease. Therefore, despite its contribution in advancing many areas of biological and health research, the biomedical model has come under increasing scrutiny. 6 This is in part due to the growing recognition of the impact of those wider social determinants on health, ill-health and wellbeing including physical, mental and social wellbeing which moves the focus beyond individual physical abilities or dysfunction. 7–9 In order to address these determinants, action needs to be taken through developing policies in a range of non-medical areas such as social, economic and environment so that they regulate the commercial and corporate determinants. In this sense, we can quickly see that the traditional biological model rapidly becomes inadequate. With the current model, health care and clinical staff can do little to affect these determinants and as such can do little to assist the individual patient or society. The efficiency and effectiveness of clinical work will undoubtedly improve if staff have the ability to observe and understand the wider social determinants and consequences of the individual patients’ condition. Therefore, in order to provide a basis for understanding the determinants of disease and arriving at rational treatments and patterns of health care, a medical model must also take into account the patient, the social context in which they live, and a system devised by society to deal with the disruptive effects of illness, that is, the physician’s role and that of the health care system. Models such as Engel’s biopsychosocial model, 9 , 10 the social model of disability, social–ecological models of health 10 , 11 including the World Health Organisation’s framework for action on social determinants of health 8 , 9 are all proposed as attempting to integrate these wider social determinants.

However, the ability of health systems to effectively transition away from a dominant biomedical model to the adoption of a social model of health and care have yet to be fully developed. Responsibility for taking action on these social determinants will need to come from other sectors and policy areas and so future health policy will need to evolve into a more comprehensive and holistic social model of health and wellbeing. Wales’ flagship Wellbeing of Future Generations Act 12 for instance outlines ways of working towards sustainable development and includes the need to collaborate with society and communities in developing and achieving wellbeing goals. However, developing and implementing an effective operational model that allows multi-stakeholder integration will prove far more difficult to achieve than creating the polices. Furthermore, if the implementation of a robust model of social health is achievable, it’s efficiency, effectiveness and ability to deliver has yet to be proven. Therefore, any future model will need to extend past its conceptual development and provide an ability to manage the complex interactions that will exist between the stakeholders and polices.

Therefore, the use of the term ‘model’ poses its own challenges and debates. Different disciplines attribute differing parameters to what constitutes a model and this in turn may influence the interpretations or expectations surrounding what a model should comprise of or deliver. 13 According to numerous authors, a model has no ontological category and as such anything from physical entities, theoretical concepts, descriptive frameworks or equations can feasibly be considered a model. 14 It appears therefore, that much discussion has focussed on the move towards a ‘descriptive’ Social Model of Health and Wellbeing in an attempt to view health more holistically and identify a wider range of determinants that can impact on the health of the population. However, in defining an operational social model of health that can facilitate organizational change, there may be a need to consider a more systems- or process-based approach.

As a result, this review seeks to systematically explore the academic literature in order to better understand how a social model of health and wellbeing is conceptualized, implemented, operationalized and evaluated in health and social care.

The review seeks to address the research questions:

How is ‘a social model of health and wellbeing’ conceptualized?

How have social models of health and wellbeing been implemented and evaluated?

A systematic search of the literature was carried out between 6 January 2022 and 20 January 2022. Using the search terms shown in table 1 , a systematic search was carried out using online databases PsycINFO, ASSIA, IBSS, Medline, Web of Science, CINHAL and SCOPUS. English language and peer-reviewed journals were selected as limiters.

Search terms

Selection and extraction criteria

The search strategy considered research that explicitly included, framed, or adopted a ‘social model of health and wellbeing’. Each paper was checked for relevance and screened. The authors reviewed the literature using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta Analysis (PRISMA) method using the updated guidelines from 2020. 15   Figure 1 represents the process followed.

PRISMA flow chart.

Data extraction and analysis

A systematic search of the literature identified 222 eligible papers for inclusion in the final review. A data extraction table was used to extract information regarding location of the research, type of paper (e.g. review, empirical), service of interest and key findings. Quantitative studies were explored with a view to conducting a quantitative meta-analysis; however, given the disparate nature of the outcome measures, and research designs, this was deemed unfeasible. All included papers were coded using NVivo software with the identified research questions in mind, and re-analysed using Thematic Analysis 16 to explore common themes of relevance.

The majority of papers were from the USA (34%), with the UK (28%), Australia (16%), Canada (6%) and wider Europe (10%) also contributing to the field. The ‘other’ category (6%) was made up of single papers from other countries. Papers ranged in date from 1983 to 2021 with no noticeable temporal patterns in country of origin, health context or model definition. However, the volume of papers published relating to the social model for healthcare in each decade increased significantly, thus suggesting the increasing research interest towards the social model of healthcare. Table 2 shows the number of publications per decade that were identified from this study.

Publications identifying social models of healthcare.

Most of the papers were narrative reviews ( n  = 90) with a smaller number of systematic reviews ( n  = 9) and empirical research studies including qualitative ( n  = 47), quantitative ( n  = 39) and mixed methods ( n  = 14) research. The remaining papers ( n  = 23) comprised small samples of, for example, clinical commentaries, cost effectiveness analysis, discussion papers and impact assessment development papers. The qualitative meta-analysis identified five overarching themes in relation to the research questions, some with underlying sub-themes, which are outlined in figure 2 .

Overview of meta-synthesis themes.

The lack of a clear and unified definition of a social model of health and wellbeing

There was common recognition amongst the papers that a key aim of applying a social model of health and wellbeing was to better address the social determinants of health. Papers identified and reviewed relevant frameworks and models, which they later used to conceptualize or frame their approach when attempting to apply a social model of health. Amongst the most commonly referenced was the WHO’s framework. 17 Engel’s biopsychosocial model 9 which was referred to as a seminal framework by many of the researchers. However, once criticism of the biopsychosocial model was its inability to fully address social needs. As a result, a number of papers reported the development of new or enhanced models that used the biopsychosocial model as their underpinning ‘social model’ 18 , 19 but then extended their work by including a wider set of social elements in their resulting models. 20 The Social ecological model, 11 the Society-Behaviour-Biology Nexus, 21 and the Environmental Affordances Model are such examples. 22 Further examples of ‘Social Models’ included the Model of Social Determinants of Health 23 which framed specific determinants of interest (namely social gradient, stress, early life, social exclusion, work, unemployment, social support, addiction, food and transport). Similarly, Dahlgren and Whitehead’s ‘social model’ 10 illustrates social determinants via a range of influential factors from the individual to the wider cultural and socioeconomic influences. However, none of these papers formally developed a working ‘definition’ of a social model of health and wellbeing, instead applying guiding principles and philosophies associated with a social model to their discussions or interventions. 24 , 25

The need to understand context

Numerous articles highlight that in order to move towards a social model of health and wellbeing, it is important to understand the context of the environment in which the model will need to operate. This includes balancing the needs of the individual with the resulting model to have been co-created, developed and implemented within the community whilst ensuring that the complexity of interaction between the social determinants of health and their influence on health and wellbeing outcomes are delivered effectively and efficiently.

The literature identified the complex multi-disciplinary nature of a variety of conditions or situations involving medical care. These included issues such as, but not exclusively, chronic pain, 26 cancer, 27 older adult care 28 and dementia, 29 thus indicating the complex arrangement of medical issues that a model will need to address and, where many authors acknowledged that the frequently used biomedical models failed to fully capture the holistic nature and need of patients. Papers outlined some of the key social determinants of health affecting the specific population of interest in their own context, highlighting the interactions between wider socioeconomic and cultural factors such as poverty, housing, isolation and transport and health and wellbeing outcomes. Interventions that had successfully addressed individual needs and successful embedded services in communities reported improved outcomes for end users and staff in the form of empowerment, agency, education and belonging. 30 There was also recognition that the transition to more community-based care could be challenging for health and social care providers who were having to work outside of their traditional models of care and accept a certain level of risk.

The need for cultural change

A number of papers referred to the need for a ‘culture change’ or ‘cultural shift’ in order to move towards a social model of health and wellbeing. Papers identified how ‘culture change models’ were implemented as a way of adapting to a social model. It was recognized that for culture change models to be effective, staff and the general public needed to be fully engaged with the entire move towards a social model, informing and shaping the mechanisms for the cultural shift as well as the application of the model itself.

Integration and collaboration towards a holistic and person-centred approach

The importance of integration and collaboration between health professionals, (which includes public, private and third sector organizations), services users and patients were emphasized in the ambition to achieve best practice when applying a social model of health and wellbeing. Papers identified the reported benefits of improved collaboration between, and integration of services which included improved continuity of care throughout complex pathways, 31 improved return to home or other setting on discharge, 25 and social connectedness. 32 Numerous papers discussed the importance of multi-disciplinary teams who were able to support individuals beyond the medicalized model.

A number of papers suggested specific professional roles or structures that would be ideal to act as champions or integrators of collaborative services and communities. 25 , 33 These could act as a link between secondary, primary and community level care helping to identify patient needs and supporting the integration of relevant services.

Measuring and evaluating a social model of health

Individual papers applying and evaluating interventions based on a social model used a variety of methods to evaluate success. Amongst these, some of the most common outcome measures included; general self-report measures of outcomes such as mental health and perceptions of safety, 34 wellbeing, 35 life satisfaction and health social networks and support 19 Some included condition specific self-report outcomes relevant to the condition in question (e.g. pregnancy, anxiety) and pain inventories. 36 Other papers considered the in-depth experiences of users or service implementers through qualitative techniques such as in-person interviews. 37 , 38

However, the complexity of developing effective methods to evaluate social models of health were recognized. The need to consider the complex interactions between social determinants, and health, wellbeing, economic and societal outcomes posed particular challenges in developing consistency across evaluations that would enable a conclusive evaluation of the benefits of social models to wider health systems and societal health. Some criticized the over-reliance of quantitative and evidence-based practice methods of evaluation highlighting how these could fail to fully capture the complexity of human behaviour and the manner in which their lives could be affected.

The aim of this systematic review was to better understand how a social model of health and wellbeing is conceptualized, implemented and evaluated in health and social care. The review sought to address the research questions identified in the ‘Introduction’ section of this paper.

With regards to the conceptualization of a social model of health and wellbeing, analysis of the literature suggests that whilst the ethos, values and aspirations of achieving a unified model appears to have consensus. However, a fundamental weakness exists in that there is no single unified definition or operational model of a social model of health and wellbeing applied to the health and social care sector. The decision about how best to conceptualize a ‘social model’ is important both in terms of its operational value but also the implication of the associated semantics. However, without a single or unified definition then implementation or further, operationalization of any model will be almost impossible to develop. Furthermore, use of the term ‘social model’ arguably loses site of the biological factors that are clearly relevant in many elements of clinical medicine. Furthermore, there is no clarification in the literature about what would ‘not’ be considered a social model of health and wellbeing, potentially leading to confusion within health and social care sectors when addressing their wider social remit. This raises questions and requires decisions about whether implementation of a social model of health and wellbeing will need to work alongside or replace the existing biomedical approach.

Authors have advocated that a social model provides a way of ‘thinking’ or articulating an organization’s values and culture. 24 Common elements of the values associated with a social model amongst the papers reviewed included recognition and awareness of the social determinants of health, increased focus on preventative rather than reactive care, and similarly the importance of quality of ‘life’ as opposed to a focus on quality of ‘care’. However, whilst this approach enables individual services to consider how well their own practices align with a social model, the authors suggest that this does not provide large organizations such as the NHS, with multifaceted services and complex internal and external connections and networks, sufficient guidance to enable large scale evaluation or transition to a widespread operational model of a social model of health and wellbeing. This raises questions about what the model should be: whether its function is to support communication of a complex ethos to encourage reflection and engagement of its staff and end users, or to develop the current illustrative framework into a predictive model that can be utilized as an evaluative tool to inform and measure the success of widespread systems change.

Regarding the potential implementation of a future social model of health and wellbeing, none of the papers evaluated the complex widespread organizational implementation of a social model, instead focusing on specific organizational contexts of services such as long-term care in care homes, etc. Despite this, common elements of successful implementation did emerge from the synthesis. This included the need to wholeheartedly engage and be inclusive of end users in policy and practice change to fully understand the complexity of their social worlds and to ensure that changes to practice and policy were ‘developed with’, as opposed to ‘create for’, the wider public. This also involved ensuring that health, social care and wider multi-disciplinary teams were actively included in the process of culture change from an early stage.

Implications for future research

The analysis identifies that a significant change of mindset and removal of perceived and actual hierarchical structures (that are historically embedded in health and social care structures) amongst both staff and public is needed although, eradicating socially embedded hierarchies will pose significant challenges in practice. Furthermore, the study revealed that many of the models proposed were conceptually underdeveloped and lacked the capability to be operationalized which in turn compromised their ability to be empirically tested. Therefore, in order that a future ‘implementable and operational’ model of social care and wellbeing can be created, further research into organizational behaviours, organizational learning and stakeholder theory (amongst others) applied to the social care and health environment is needed.

Towards defining a social model of health and wellbeing

In attempting to conceptualize a definition for a social model of health and wellbeing, it is important to note that the model needs to be sufficiently broad in scope in order to include the prevailing biomedical while also including the need to draw in the social determinants that provide a view and future trajectory towards social health and wellbeing. Therefore, the authors suggest that the ‘preventative’ approach brought by the improvements in the social health determinants (social, cultural, political, environmental ) need to be balanced effectively with the ‘remedial/preventative’ focus of the biomedical model (and the associated advancements in diagnostics, technology, vaccines, etc), ensuring that a future model drives cultural change; improved integration and collaboration towards a holistic and person-centred approach whilst ensuring engagement with citizens, users, multi-disciplinary teams and partner organizations to ensure that transition towards a social model of health and wellbeing is undertaken.

Through a comprehensive literature analysis, this paper has provided evidence that advocates a move towards a social model of health and wellbeing. However, the study has predominantly considered mainly literature from the USA, UK, Canada and Australia and therefore is limited in scope at this stage. The authors are aware of the need to consider research undertaken in non-English speaking countries where a considerable body of knowledge also exists and which will add to further discussion about how that work dovetails into this body of literature and, how it aligns with the biomedical perspective. There is a need for complex organizations such as the NHS and allied organizations to agree a working definition of their model of health and wellbeing, whether that be a social model of health and wellbeing, a biopsychosocial model, a combined model, or indeed a new or revised perspective. 39

One limitation seen of the models within this study is that at a systems level, most models were conceptual models that characterized current systems or conditions and interventions to the current system that result in localized improvements in systems’ performance. However, for meaningful change to occur, a ‘future state’ model may need to focus on a behavioural systems approach allowing modelling of the complete system to take place in order to understand how the elements within the model 40 behave under different external conditions and how these behaviours affect overall system performance.

Furthermore, considerable work will be required to engage on a more equal footing with the public, health and social care staff as well as wider supporting organizations in developing workable principles and processes that fully embrace the equality of a social model and challenging the ‘power’ imbalances of the current biomedical model.

Supplementary data are available at EURPUB online.

This research was funded/commissioned by Hywel Dda University Health Board. The research was funded in two phases.

Conflicts of interest: None declared.

The datasets generated and/or analysed during the current study are available in the Data Archive at Aberystwyth University and have been included in the supplementary file attached to this submission. A full table of references for studies included in the review will be provided as a supplementary document. The references below refer to citations in the report which are in addition to the included studies of the synthesis.

The review identified five themes namely: the lack of a clear definition of a social model of health and wellbeing; the need to understand context; the need for cultural change; improved integration and collaboration towards a holistic and person-centred approach; measuring and evaluating the performance of a social model of health.

The review identified a need for organizations to decide on how a social model is to be defined especially at the interfaces between partner organizations and communities.

The implications for public policy in this paper highlights the importance of engagement with citizens, users, multi-disciplinary teams and partner organizations to ensure that transition towards a social model of health and wellbeing is undertaken with holistic needs as a central value.

British Medical Association (ND). An NHS under pressure. Accessed via An NHS under pressure (bma.org.uk). https://www.bma.org.uk/advice-and-support/nhs-delivery-and-workforce/pressures/an-nhs-under-pressure (26 June 2023, date last accessed).

Nuffield Trust ( 2022 ). NHS performance summary. Accessed via NHS performance summary | The Nuffield Trust. https://www.nuffieldtrust.org.uk/news-item/nhs-performance-summary-january-february-2022 (26 June 2023, date last accessed).

NHS confederation , ( 2022 ) Running hot: The impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on mental health services. Accessed via Running hot | NHS Confederation. https://www.nhsconfed.org/publications/running-hot (26 June 2023, date last accessed).

Gemine R , Davies GR , Tarrant S , et al.    Factors associated with work-related burnout in NHS staff during COVID-19: a cross-sectional mixed methods study . BMJ Open   2021 ; 11 : e042591 .

Google Scholar

Iacobucci G.   Medical models of care needs updating say experts . BMJ   2018 ; 360 : K1034 .

Podgorski CA , Anderson SD , Parmar J.   A biopsychosocial-ecological framework for family-framed dementia care . Front Psychiatry   2021 ; 12 : 744806 .

Marmot M.   Social determinants of health inequalities . Lancet   2005 ; 365 : 1099 – 104 .

World Health Organisation ( 1946 ) Preamble to the Constitution of the World Health Organization as adopted by the International Health Conference . New York: World Health Organization, 19–22 June, 1946.

World Health Organisation ( 2010 ). A conceptual framework for action on the social determinants of health. Accessed via A Conceptual Framework for Action on the Social Determinants of Health (who.int) (26 June 2023, date last accessed).

Engel G.   The need for a new medical model: a challenge for biomedicine . Science   1977 ; 196 : 129 – 36 .

Dahlgren G , Whitehead M. ( 2006 ). European strategies for tackling social inequities in health: Levelling up part 2. Studies on Social Economic Determinants of Population Health, 1–105. Available at: http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0018/103824/E89384.pdf (12 October 2023, date last accessed).

McLeroy KR , Bibeau D , Steckler A , Glanz K.   An ecological perspective on health promotion programs . Health Educ Q   1988 ; 15 : 351 – 77 .

Welsh Government , Wellbeing of Future Generations Act 2015. Available at: https://www.gov.wales/sites/default/files/publications/2021-10/well-being-future-generations-wales-act-2015-the-essentials-2021.pdf (12 October 2023, date last accessed).

Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy ( 2006 , 2020). Models in Science. Available at: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/models-science/ (26 June 2023, date last accessed).

Page MJ , McKenzie JE , Bossuyt PM , et al.    The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews . BMJ   2021 ; 372 : n71 .

Braun V , Clarke V.   Using thematic analysis in psychology . Qual Res Psychol   2006 ; 3 : 77 – 101 .

Thomas J , Harden A.   Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews . BMC Med Res Methodol   2008 ; 8 : 45 .

Solar O , Irwin A. ( 2016 ) “A conceptual framework for action on the social determinants of health. Geneva, Switzerland: WHO; 2010”. (Social determinants of health discussion paper 2 (policy and practice)). Available at: http://www.who.int/sdhconference/resources/ConceptualframeworkforactiononSDH_eng.pdf (12 October 2023, date last accessed).

Farre A , Rapley T.   The new old (and old new) medical model: four decades navigating the biomedical and psychosocial understandings of health and illness . Healthcare   2017 ; 5 : 88 .

Smedema SM.   Evaluation of a concentric biopsychosocial model of well-being in persons with spinal cord injuries . Rehabil Psychol   2017 ; 62 : 186 – 97 . PMID: 28569533.

Robles B , Kuo T , Thomas Tobin CS.   What are the relationships between psychosocial community characteristics and dietary behaviors in a racially/ethnically diverse urban population in Los Angeles county? . Int J Environ Res Public Health   2021 ; 18 : 9868 .

Glass TA , McAtee MJ.   Behavioral science at the crossroads in public health: extending horizons, envisioning the future . Soc Sci Med   2006 ; 62 : 1650 – 71 .

Mezuk B , Abdou CM , Hudson D , et al.    "White Box" epidemiology and the social neuroscience of health behaviors: the environmental affordances model . Soc Ment Health   2013 ; 3 : 10.1177/2156869313480892

Wilkinson RG , Marmot M , editors. Social Determinants of Health: The Solid Facts . Copenhagen, Denmark: World Health Organization , 2003 .

Google Preview

Mannion R , Davies H.   Understanding organisational culture for healthcare quality improvement . BMJ   2018 ; 363 : k4907 .

Blount A , Bayona J.   Toward a system of integrated primary care . Fam Syst Health   1994 ; 12 : 171 – 82 .

Berger MY , Gieteling MJ , Benninga MA.   Chronic abdominal pain in children . BMJ   2007 ; 334 : 997 – 1002 . PMID: 17494020; PMCID: PMC1867894.

Berríos-Rivera R , Rivero-Vergne A , Romero I.   The pediatric cancer hospitalization experience: reality co-constructed . J Pediatr Oncol Nurs   2008 ; 25 : 340 – 53 .

Doty MM , Koren MJ , Sturla EL. ( 2008 ). Culture change in nursing homes: How far have we come? Findings from the Commonwealth Fund 2007 National Survey. The Commonwealth Fund, 91. Available at: http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Content/Publications/Fund-Reports/2008/May/Culture-Change-in-NursingHomes-How-Far-Have-We-Come-Findings-FromThe-Commonwealth-Fund-2007-Nati.aspx (16 October 2023, date last accessed).

Robinson L , Tang E , Taylor J.   Dementia: timely diagnosis and early intervention . BMJ   2015 ; 350 : h3029 .

Baxter S , Johnson M , Chambers D , et al.    Understanding new models of integrated care in developed countries: a systematic review . Health Serv Deliv Res   2018 ; 6 : 1 .

Seys D , Panella M , VanZelm R , et al.    Care pathways are complex interventions in complex systems: new European Pathway Association framework . Int J Care Coord   2019 ; 22 : 5 – 9 .

Agarwal G , Brydges M.   Effects of a community health promotion program on social factors in a vulnerable older adult population residing in social housing” . BMC Geriatr   2018 ; 18 : 95 . PMID: 29661136; PMCID: PMC5902999.

Franklin CM , Bernhardt JM , Lopez RP , et al.    Interprofessional teamwork and collaboration between community health workers and healthcare teams: an integrative review . Health Serv Res Manag Epidemiol   2015 ; 2 : 2333392815573312 . PMID: 28462254; PMCID: PMC5266454.

Gagné T , Henderson C , McMunn A.   Is the self-reporting of mental health problems sensitive to public stigma towards mental illness? A comparison of time trends across English regions (2009-19) . Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol   2023 ; 58 : 671 – 80 . PMID: 36473961; PMCID: PMC9735159.

Geyh S , Nick E , Stirnimann D , et al.    Biopsychosocial outcomes in individuals with and without spinal cord injury: a Swiss comparative study . Spinal Cord   2012 ; 50 : 614 – 22 .

Davies C , Knuiman M , Rosenberg M.   The art of being mentally healthy: a study to quantify the relationship between recreational arts engagement and mental well-being in the general population . BMC Public Health   2016 ; 16 : 15 . PMID: 26733272; PMCID: PMC4702355.

Duberstein Z , Brunner J , Panisch L , et al.    The biopsychosocial model and perinatal health care: determinants of perinatal care in a community sample . Front Psychiatry   2021 ; 12 : 746803 .

The King’s Fund , ( 2021 ). Health inequalities in a nutshell. Accessed via Health inequalities in a nutshell | The King's Fund (kingsfund.org.uk) https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/projects/nhs-in-a-nutshell/health-inequalities (23 October 2023, date last accessed)

Blount A.   Integrated primary care: organizing the evidence . Fam Syst Health   2003 ; 21 : 121 – 33 .

Email alerts

Citing articles via.

• Contact EUPHA
• Recommend to your Library

Affiliations

• Online ISSN 1464-360X
• Print ISSN 1101-1262
• Copyright © 2024 European Public Health Association
• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Institutional account management
• Rights and permissions
• Get help with access
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.