action research literature review example

Archer Library

Action research: literature review .

• EDFN 504 • Action Research Handout This link opens in a new window
• Locating Books
• Locating eBooks
• A to Z Database List This link opens in a new window
• Research & Statistics
• Literature Review Resources
• Citation & Reference

Literature Review & Model:  6 Steps

Adapted from The Literature Review , Machi & McEvoy (2009, p. 13).

Step 2: Search

Boolean search strategies, search limiters, ★ ebsco & google drive.

1. Select a Topic

"All research begins with curiosity" (Machi & McEvoy, 2009, p. 14)

Selection of a topic, and fully defined research interest and question, is supervised (and approved) by your professor. Tips for crafting your topic include:

• Be specific. Take time to define your interest.
• Topic Focus. Fully describe and sufficiently narrow the focus for research.
• Academic Discipline. Learn more about your area of research & refine the scope.
• Avoid Bias. Be aware of bias that you (as a researcher) may have.
• Document your research. Use Google Docs to track your research process.
• Research apps. Consider using Evernote or Zotero to track your research.

Consider Purpose

What will your topic and research address?

In The Literature Review: A Step-by-Step Guide for Students , Ridley presents that literature reviews serve several purposes (2008, p. 16-17).  Included are the following points:

• Historical background for the research;
• Overview of current field provided by "contemporary debates, issues, and questions;"
• Theories and concepts related to your research;
• Introduce "relevant terminology" - or academic language - being used it the field;
• Connect to existing research - does your work "extend or challenge [this] or address a gap;" 
• Provide "supporting evidence for a practical problem or issue" that your research addresses.

★ Schedule a research appointment

At this point in your literature review, take time to meet with a librarian. Why? Understanding the subject terminology used in databases can be challenging. Archer Librarians can help you structure a search, preparing you for step two. How? Contact a librarian directly or use the online form to schedule an appointment. 

• Schedule a Research Appointment • Library Help Form

2. Search the Literature

Collect & Select Data: Preview, select, and organize

AU Library is your go-to resource for this step in your literature review process. The literature search will include books and ebooks, scholarly and practitioner journals, theses and dissertations, and indexes. You may also choose to include web sites, blogs, open access resources, and newspapers. This library guide provides access to resources needed to complete a literature review.

Books & eBooks: Archer Library & OhioLINK

Databases: Scholarly & Practitioner Journals

Review the Library Databases tab on this library guide, it provides links to recommended databases for Education & Psychology, Business, and General & Social Sciences.

Expand your journal search; a complete listing of available AU Library and OhioLINK databases is available on Archer Library's A-Z Database List. Search the list by subject, type, name, or use the search box for a general title search. The A to Z Database list also includes open access resources.

• Archer Library Databases A - Z

Databases: Theses & Dissertations

Review the Library Databases tab on this guide, it includes Theses & Dissertation resources. Archer Library also has AU student authored theses and dissertations available in print, search the library catalog for these titles.

Did you know? If you are looking for particular chapters within a dissertation that is not fully available online, it is possible to submit an ILL article request . Do this instead of requesting the entire dissertation.

Newspapers:  Databases & Internet

Consider current literature in your academic field. AU Library's database collection includes The Chronicle of Higher Education and The Wall Street Journal .  The Internet Resources tab in this guide provides links to newspapers and online journals such as Inside Higher Ed , COABE Journal , and Education Week .

The Chronicle of Higher Education has the nation’s largest newsroom dedicated to covering colleges and universities.  Source of news, information, and jobs for college and university faculty members and administrators

The Chronicle features complete contents of the latest print issue; daily news and advice columns; current job listings; archive of previously published content; discussion forums; and career-building tools such as online CV management and salary databases. Dates covered: 1970-present.

Offers in-depth coverage of national and international business and finance as well as first-rate coverage of hard news--all from America's premier financial newspaper. Covers complete bibliographic information and also subjects, companies, people, products, and geographic areas. 

Comprehensive coverage back to 1984 is available from the world's leading financial newspaper through the ProQuest database. 

Newspaper Source provides cover-to-cover full text for hundreds of national (U.S.), international and regional newspapers. In addition, it offers television and radio news transcripts from major networks.

Provides complete television and radio news transcripts from CBS News, CNN, CNN International, FOX News, and more.

Search Strategies & Boolean Operators

There are three basic boolean operators:  AND, OR, and NOT.

Used with your search terms, boolean operators will either expand or limit results. What purpose do they serve? They help to define the relationship between your search terms. For example, using the operator AND will combine the terms expanding the search. When searching some databases, and Google, the operator AND may be implied.

Overview of boolean terms

About the example: Boolean searches were conducted on November 4, 2019; result numbers may vary at a later date. No additional database limiters were set to further narrow search returns.

Database Search Limiters

Database strategies for targeted search results.

Most databases include limiters, or additional parameters, you may use to strategically focus search results.  EBSCO databases, such as Education Research Complete & Academic Search Complete provide options to:

• Limit results to full text;
• Limit results to scholarly journals, and reference available;
• Select results source type to journals, magazines, conference papers, reviews, and newspapers
• Publication date

Keep in mind that these tools are defined as limiters for a reason; adding them to a search will limit the number of results returned.  This can be a double-edged sword.  How? 

• If limiting results to full-text only, you may miss an important piece of research that could change the direction of your research. Interlibrary loan is available to students, free of charge. Request articles that are not available in full-text; they will be sent to you via email.
• If narrowing publication date, you may eliminate significant historical - or recent - research conducted on your topic.
• Limiting resource type to a specific type of material may cause bias in the research results.

Use limiters with care. When starting a search, consider opting out of limiters until the initial literature screening is complete. The second or third time through your research may be the ideal time to focus on specific time periods or material (scholarly vs newspaper).

★ Truncating Search Terms

Expanding your search term at the root.

Truncating is often referred to as 'wildcard' searching. Databases may have their own specific wildcard elements however, the most commonly used are the asterisk (*) or question mark (?).  When used within your search. they will expand returned results.

Asterisk (*) Wildcard

Using the asterisk wildcard will return varied spellings of the truncated word. In the following example, the search term education was truncated after the letter "t."

Explore these database help pages for additional information on crafting search terms.

• EBSCO Connect: Searching with Wildcards and Truncation Symbols
• EBSCO Connect: Searching with Boolean Operators
• EBSCO Connect: EBSCOhost Search Tips
• EBSCO Connect: Basic Searching with EBSCO
• ProQuest Help: Search Tips
• ERIC FAQs: Searching ERIC

★ EBSCO Databases & Google Drive

Tips for saving research directly to Google drive.

Researching in an EBSCO database?

It is possible to save articles (PDF and HTML) and abstracts in EBSCOhost databases directly to Google drive. Select the Google Drive icon, authenticate using a Google account, and an EBSCO folder will be created in your account. This is a great option for managing your research. If documenting your research in a Google Doc, consider linking the information to actual articles saved in drive.

EBSCO Databases & Google Drive

EBSCOHost Databases & Google Drive: Managing your Research

This video features an overview of how to use Google Drive with EBSCO databases to help manage your research. It presents information for connecting an active Google account to EBSCO and steps needed to provide permission for EBSCO to manage a folder in Drive.

About the Video:  Closed captioning is available, select CC from the video menu.  If you need to review a specific area on the video, view on YouTube and expand the video description for access to topic time stamps.  A video transcript is provided below.

• EBSCOhost Databases & Google Scholar

Defining Literature Review

What is a literature review.

Definitions from the Online Dictionary for Library and Information Sciences .

A 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" (Reitz, 2014). 

A systemic review is "a literature review focused on a specific research question, which uses explicit methods to minimize bias in the identification, appraisal, selection, and synthesis of all the high-quality evidence pertinent to the question" (Reitz, 2014).

Literature Review Titles

About this page

EBSCO Connect [Discovery and Search]. (2022). Searching with Boolean operators. Retrieved May, 3, 2022 from https://connect.ebsco.com/s/article/Searching-with-Boolean-Operators

EBSCO Connect [Discovery and Search]. (2022). Searching with wildcards in EDS and EBSCO. Retrieved August 1, 2024 from https://connect.ebsco.com/s/article/Searching-with-Wildcards-in-EDS-and-EBSCOhost

Machi, L.A. & McEvoy, B.T. (2009). The literature review . Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press: 

Reitz, J.M. (2014). Online dictionary for library and information science. ABC-CLIO, Libraries Unlimited . Retrieved from https://www.abc-clio.com/ODLIS/odlis_A.aspx

Ridley, D. (2008). The literature review: A step-by-step guide for students . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

• << Previous: Research & Statistics
• Next: Literature Review Resources >>
• Last Updated: Aug 5, 2024 8:17 AM
• URL: https://libguides.ashland.edu/action-research

Archer Library • Ashland University © Copyright 2023. An Equal Opportunity/Equal Access Institution.

Improvement of Instruction Through Action Research (61-682/683)

Structure of a research article, how to write a literature review, why and how.

• Books/eBooks
• Citing Practice
• Ask A Librarian
• Descriptions
• Sample Articles

• Agriculture: Determinants of the Farmers' Conversion to Organic and Biodynamic Agriculture
• Dietetics, Nutrition: High Insoluble Fibre Content Increases In Vitro Starch Digestibility in Partially Baked Breads
• Education: Portraits of Middle School Students Constructing Evidence-Based Arguments During Problem-Based Learning
• Mass Media: Corrupt Politicians? Media Priming Effects on Overtly Expressed Stereotypes toward Politicians
• Natural Sciences: Historical Abundance and Spatial Distribution of the Atlantic Bottlenose Dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) Along the Southeast Coast of the United States
• Physical Education: The Acute Effects of Various Types of Stretching
• Psychology: What is the Best Way to Analyze Less Frequent Forms of Violence? The Case of Sexual Aggression

17 - what is a literature review from Joshua Vossler on Vimeo .

"The purpose of a literature review is to help you explain how the question to be investigated fits into the larger picture and why you have approached the topic the way you have. This section of a scholarly report allows the reader to be brought up to date regarding the state of research in the field and familiarizes him or her to any contrasting perspectives and viewpoints on the topic."

"Summarize and explain what research has been done on the topic, citing the sources as you mention them. Point out the different ways researchers have treated the topic. Point out any connections between the sources especially where one source built upon prior study. Explain how this past work fits together to make your research question significant. Your literature review should present your synthesis of previous research and lay the foundation for understanding your research and appreciating its value."

Washington & Lee University

• << Previous: Home
• Next: Articles >>
• Last Updated: May 30, 2024 4:01 PM
• URL: https://libguides.nwmissouri.edu/ActResearch

The Essential Guide to Conducting Literature Reviews for Action Research in Education

Literature reviews are essential to action research in education, providing the foundation for a well-informed study. Action research seeks to improve educational practices and empower educators in decision-making. By understanding the existing body of knowledge, researchers can develop meaningful questions, choose effective methodologies, and ultimately implement powerful changes in educational settings. This article provides an essential guide for educators and education professionals to conduct literature reviews for action research in education.

Table of Contents

Defining Action Research in Education

Action research is a systematic and collaborative approach to problem-solving and professional development in educational settings. It involves a cyclical process of identifying issues, collecting and analyzing data, refining strategies, and implementing change. The ultimate goal of action research is to improve educational practice through reflection and evidence-based decision-making.

The Purpose of Literature Reviews in Action Research

A literature review is an essential component of the action research process. It serves several purposes:

• Establish a theoretical framework:  A comprehensive literature review identifies existing theories, models, and concepts relevant to the research problem. By integrating these theories with the research study, researchers can create a solid foundation for the research process.
• Identify gaps in knowledge:  A literature review evaluates previous research to identify areas where more work needs to be done. These gaps in the literature provide opportunities for the researcher to explore new territory and contribute valuable insights to the field.
• Prevent duplication of effort:  By becoming familiar with the existing literature, researchers can avoid repeating previous studies and focus on new and innovative approaches.
• Inform research design:  A thorough literature review can help inform the selection of research methods, data collection techniques, and analysis strategies.
• Demonstrate expertise:  A well-constructed literature review showcases the researcher’s understanding of key issues and helps establish credibility with the audience.

Strategies for Conducting Literature Reviews

The following strategies can help ensure a thorough and effective literature review in action research:

• Search relevant databases and library catalogs:  Start by searching education-focused databases like ERIC, Education Source, and PsycINFO. Also, consider interdisciplinary databases like Google Scholar and JSTOR. Utilize the library catalog to locate books, dissertations, and other relevant resources.
• Use a systematic approach:  Develop a clear set of inclusion and exclusion criteria to ensure consistency when selecting articles to review. These criteria may include the publication date range, research methodologies, and study populations.
• Employ keyword searches:  Develop a list of keywords and phrases related to the research topic. Use these terms to search databases for studies that align with the research question.
• Analyze and synthesize the literature:  Organize the literature thematically or chronologically, discussing the studies about each other and the broader research context.
• Evaluate the quality of the research:  Critically assess the validity and reliability of the studies reviewed. Consider factors such as sample size, research design, and the researcher’s potential bias.

Best Practices for Writing a Literature Review in Action Research

The following best practices can enhance the quality and effectiveness of a literature review:

• Structure the review logically:  Begin the review by discussing the research area’s broader context and historical background. Followed by a presentation of the main themes, theories, and key concepts. Finally, discuss the gaps in the literature and explain how the current study aims to address these gaps.
• Use clear and concise language:  Emphasize clarity and precision in writing, avoiding jargon and unnecessarily complex terms. Remember that the goal is to communicate the content effectively to the audience.
• Cite sources accurately:  Properly attribute ideas, theories, and research findings to their original sources. This not only demonstrates ethical practice but also adds credibility to the review.
• Maintain an objective tone:  Write in the third person and maintain an objective stance throughout the review. Present facts and evidence objectively, avoiding opinion, speculation, or personal bias.
• Integrate examples, quotes, and paraphrases:  Illustrate essential points and concepts with the help of direct quotes or paraphrases. However, use them sparingly and always provide appropriate citations.

A well-conducted literature review is essential to successful action research in education. It allows researchers to understand the existing body of knowledge, identify gaps, and frame their research in a meaningful context. By implementing the strategies and best practices presented in this essential guide, educators and education professionals can conduct literature reviews that enhance the quality and impact of their action research projects.

Mark Anthony Llego

Mark Anthony Llego, a visionary from the Philippines, founded TeacherPH in October 2014 with a mission to transform the educational landscape. His platform has empowered thousands of Filipino teachers, providing them with crucial resources and a space for meaningful idea exchange, ultimately enhancing their instructional and supervisory capabilities. TeacherPH's influence extends far beyond its origins. Mark's insightful articles on education have garnered international attention, featuring on respected U.S. educational websites. Moreover, his work has become a valuable reference for researchers, contributing to the academic discourse on education.

Leave a Comment Cancel reply

Can't find what you're looking for.

We are here to help - please use the search box below.

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

Step 3a: Literature Review

Module 2: Action Research Question & Literature Review

What is a Literature Review?

Generally speaking, a literature review would involve an in-depth scan of available material to identify material and gaps in your field of study.

The following videos explain the purpose and steps of a literature review in more detail.

What is a Literature Review? Explained with a REAL Example

Source: Scribbr . YouTube, 25 Mar 2020.

Additional Resources

To further your understanding, view the following video: What is a Literature Review?

The Key Benefits of a Literature Review

Completing a lit review provides numerous benefits to the researcher.

Flash Cards

Using Databases and Keyword Searches to Find Scholarly Research Literature

Keywords/Descriptors: These are specific terms related to your research topic. By searching with these keywords, you will find a list of scholarly articles where these terms appear.

Alternative Search Methods: Beyond keywords, there are other methods to explore, which can be equally effective.

To learn about conducting effective searches in scholarly databases, please review the following booklets and watch the instructional videos provided. These will guide you through the process of keyword searches and introduce other search strategies.

Interactive Book

Finding Scholarly Research Literature

Be sure to view the following booklet, which will help you to search for scholarly articles.

Action Research Handbook Copyright © by Dr. Zabedia Nazim and Dr. Sowmya Venkat-Kishore is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

• UWF Libraries

Literature Review: Conducting & Writing

• Sample Literature Reviews
• Steps for Conducting a Lit Review
• Finding "The Literature"
• Organizing/Writing
• APA Style This link opens in a new window
• Chicago: Notes Bibliography This link opens in a new window
• MLA Style This link opens in a new window

Sample Lit Reviews from Communication Arts

Have an exemplary literature review.

• Literature Review Sample 1
• Literature Review Sample 2
• Literature Review Sample 3

Have you written a stellar literature review you care to share for teaching purposes?

Are you an instructor who has received an exemplary literature review and have permission from the student to post?

Please contact Britt McGowan at [email protected] for inclusion in this guide. All disciplines welcome and encouraged.

• << Previous: MLA Style
• Next: Get Help! >>
• Last Updated: Aug 8, 2024 11:00 AM
• URL: https://libguides.uwf.edu/litreview

Have a language expert improve your writing

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

• Knowledge Base

Methodology

• What Is Action Research? | Definition & Examples

What Is Action Research? | Definition & Examples

Published on January 27, 2023 by Tegan George . Revised on January 12, 2024.

Table of contents

Types of action research, action research models, examples of action research, action research vs. traditional research, advantages and disadvantages of action research, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions about action research.

There are 2 common types of action research: participatory action research and practical action research.

• Participatory action research emphasizes that participants should be members of the community being studied, empowering those directly affected by outcomes of said research. In this method, participants are effectively co-researchers, with their lived experiences considered formative to the research process.
• Practical action research focuses more on how research is conducted and is designed to address and solve specific issues.

Both types of action research are more focused on increasing the capacity and ability of future practitioners than contributing to a theoretical body of knowledge.

Here's why students love Scribbr's proofreading services

Discover proofreading & editing

Action research is often reflected in 3 action research models: operational (sometimes called technical), collaboration, and critical reflection.

• Operational (or technical) action research is usually visualized like a spiral following a series of steps, such as “planning → acting → observing → reflecting.”
• Collaboration action research is more community-based, focused on building a network of similar individuals (e.g., college professors in a given geographic area) and compiling learnings from iterated feedback cycles.
• Critical reflection action research serves to contextualize systemic processes that are already ongoing (e.g., working retroactively to analyze existing school systems by questioning why certain practices were put into place and developed the way they did).

Action research is often used in fields like education because of its iterative and flexible style.

After the information was collected, the students were asked where they thought ramps or other accessibility measures would be best utilized, and the suggestions were sent to school administrators. Example: Practical action research Science teachers at your city’s high school have been witnessing a year-over-year decline in standardized test scores in chemistry. In seeking the source of this issue, they studied how concepts are taught in depth, focusing on the methods, tools, and approaches used by each teacher.

Action research differs sharply from other types of research in that it seeks to produce actionable processes over the course of the research rather than contributing to existing knowledge or drawing conclusions from datasets. In this way, action research is formative , not summative , and is conducted in an ongoing, iterative way.

As such, action research is different in purpose, context, and significance and is a good fit for those seeking to implement systemic change.

Action research comes with advantages and disadvantages.

• Action research is highly adaptable , allowing researchers to mold their analysis to their individual needs and implement practical individual-level changes.
• Action research provides an immediate and actionable path forward for solving entrenched issues, rather than suggesting complicated, longer-term solutions rooted in complex data.
• Done correctly, action research can be very empowering , informing social change and allowing participants to effect that change in ways meaningful to their communities.

Disadvantages

• Due to their flexibility, action research studies are plagued by very limited generalizability  and are very difficult to replicate . They are often not considered theoretically rigorous due to the power the researcher holds in drawing conclusions.
• Action research can be complicated to structure in an ethical manner . Participants may feel pressured to participate or to participate in a certain way.
• Action research is at high risk for research biases such as selection bias , social desirability bias , or other types of cognitive biases .

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
• Degrees of freedom
• Null hypothesis
• Discourse analysis
• Control groups
• Mixed methods research
• Non-probability sampling
• Quantitative research
• Inclusion and exclusion criteria

Research bias

• Rosenthal effect
• Implicit bias
• Cognitive bias
• Selection bias
• Negativity bias
• Status quo bias

Action research is conducted in order to solve a particular issue immediately, while case studies are often conducted over a longer period of time and focus more on observing and analyzing a particular ongoing phenomenon.

Action research is focused on solving a problem or informing individual and community-based knowledge in a way that impacts teaching, learning, and other related processes. It is less focused on contributing theoretical input, instead producing actionable input.

Action research is particularly popular with educators as a form of systematic inquiry because it prioritizes reflection and bridges the gap between theory and practice. Educators are able to simultaneously investigate an issue as they solve it, and the method is very iterative and flexible.

A cycle of inquiry is another name for action research . It is usually visualized in a spiral shape following a series of steps, such as “planning → acting → observing → reflecting.”

Sources in this article

We strongly encourage students to use sources in their work. You can cite our article (APA Style) or take a deep dive into the articles below.

George, T. (2024, January 12). What Is Action Research? | Definition & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved August 26, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/action-research/

Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2017). Research methods in education (8th edition). Routledge.

Naughton, G. M. (2001).  Action research (1st edition). Routledge.

Is this article helpful?

Tegan George

Other students also liked, what is an observational study | guide & examples, primary research | definition, types, & examples, guide to experimental design | overview, steps, & examples, get unlimited documents corrected.

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

Research Process :: Step by Step

• Introduction
• Select Topic
• Identify Keywords
• Background Information
• Develop Research Questions
• Refine Topic
• Search Strategy
• Popular Databases
• Evaluate Sources
• Types of Periodicals
• Reading Scholarly Articles
• Primary & Secondary Sources
• Organize / Take Notes
• Writing & Grammar Resources
• Annotated Bibliography
• Literature Review
• Citation Styles
• Paraphrasing
• Privacy / Confidentiality
• Research Process
• Selecting Your Topic
• Identifying Keywords
• Gathering Background Info
• Evaluating Sources

Organize the literature review into sections that present themes or identify trends, including relevant theory. You are not trying to list all the material published, but to synthesize and evaluate it according to the guiding concept of your thesis or research question.  

What is a literature review?

A literature review is an account of what has been published on a topic by accredited scholars and researchers. Occasionally you will be asked to write one as a separate assignment, but more often it is part of the introduction to an essay, research report, or thesis. In writing the literature review, your purpose is to convey to your reader what knowledge and ideas have been established on a topic, and what their strengths and weaknesses are. As a piece of writing, the literature review must be defined by a guiding concept (e.g., your research objective, the problem or issue you are discussing, or your argumentative thesis). It is not just a descriptive list of the material available, or a set of summaries

A literature review must do these things:

• be organized around and related directly to the thesis or research question you are developing
• synthesize results into a summary of what is and is not known
• identify areas of controversy in the literature
• formulate questions that need further research

Ask yourself questions like these:

• What is the specific thesis, problem, or research question that my literature review helps to define?
• What type of literature review am I conducting? Am I looking at issues of theory? methodology? policy? quantitative research (e.g. on the effectiveness of a new procedure)? qualitative research (e.g., studies of loneliness among migrant workers)?
• What is the scope of my literature review? What types of publications am I using (e.g., journals, books, government documents, popular media)? What discipline am I working in (e.g., nursing psychology, sociology, medicine)?
• How good was my information seeking? Has my search been wide enough to ensure I've found all the relevant material? Has it been narrow enough to exclude irrelevant material? Is the number of sources I've used appropriate for the length of my paper?
• Have I critically analyzed the literature I use? Do I follow through a set of concepts and questions, comparing items to each other in the ways they deal with them? Instead of just listing and summarizing items, do I assess them, discussing strengths and weaknesses?
• Have I cited and discussed studies contrary to my perspective?
• Will the reader find my literature review relevant, appropriate, and useful?

Ask yourself questions like these about each book or article you include:

• Has the author formulated a problem/issue?
• Is it clearly defined? Is its significance (scope, severity, relevance) clearly established?
• Could the problem have been approached more effectively from another perspective?
• What is the author's research orientation (e.g., interpretive, critical science, combination)?
• What is the author's theoretical framework (e.g., psychological, developmental, feminist)?
• What is the relationship between the theoretical and research perspectives?
• Has the author evaluated the literature relevant to the problem/issue? Does the author include literature taking positions she or he does not agree with?
• In a research study, how good are the basic components of the study design (e.g., population, intervention, outcome)? How accurate and valid are the measurements? Is the analysis of the data accurate and relevant to the research question? Are the conclusions validly based upon the data and analysis?
• In material written for a popular readership, does the author use appeals to emotion, one-sided examples, or rhetorically-charged language and tone? Is there an objective basis to the reasoning, or is the author merely "proving" what he or she already believes?
• How does the author structure the argument? Can you "deconstruct" the flow of the argument to see whether or where it breaks down logically (e.g., in establishing cause-effect relationships)?
• In what ways does this book or article contribute to our understanding of the problem under study, and in what ways is it useful for practice? What are the strengths and limitations?
• How does this book or article relate to the specific thesis or question I am developing?

Text written by Dena Taylor, Health Sciences Writing Centre, University of Toronto

http://www.writing.utoronto.ca/advice/specific-types-of-writing/literature-review

• << Previous: Annotated Bibliography
• Next: Step 5: Cite Sources >>
• Last Updated: Jun 13, 2024 4:27 PM
• URL: https://libguides.uta.edu/researchprocess

University of Texas Arlington Libraries 702 Planetarium Place · Arlington, TX 76019 · 817-272-3000

• Internet Privacy
• Accessibility
• Problems with a guide? Contact Us.

How To Structure Your Literature Review

3 options to help structure your chapter.

By: Amy Rommelspacher (PhD) | Reviewer: Dr Eunice Rautenbach | November 2020 (Updated May 2023)

Writing the literature review chapter can seem pretty daunting when you’re piecing together your dissertation or thesis. As  we’ve discussed before , a good literature review needs to achieve a few very important objectives – it should:

• Demonstrate your knowledge of the research topic
• Identify the gaps in the literature and show how your research links to these
• Provide the foundation for your conceptual framework (if you have one)
• Inform your own  methodology and research design

To achieve this, your literature review needs a well-thought-out structure . Get the structure of your literature review chapter wrong and you’ll struggle to achieve these objectives. Don’t worry though – in this post, we’ll look at how to structure your literature review for maximum impact (and marks!).

But wait – is this the right time?

Deciding on the structure of your literature review should come towards the end of the literature review process – after you have collected and digested the literature, but before you start writing the chapter. 

In other words, you need to first develop a rich understanding of the literature before you even attempt to map out a structure. There’s no use trying to develop a structure before you’ve fully wrapped your head around the existing research.

Equally importantly, you need to have a structure in place before you start writing , or your literature review will most likely end up a rambling, disjointed mess. 

Importantly, don’t feel that once you’ve defined a structure you can’t iterate on it. It’s perfectly natural to adjust as you engage in the writing process. As we’ve discussed before , writing is a way of developing your thinking, so it’s quite common for your thinking to change – and therefore, for your chapter structure to change – as you write. 

Need a helping hand?

Like any other chapter in your thesis or dissertation, your literature review needs to have a clear, logical structure. At a minimum, it should have three essential components – an  introduction , a  body   and a  conclusion . 

Let’s take a closer look at each of these.

1: The Introduction Section

Just like any good introduction, the introduction section of your literature review should introduce the purpose and layout (organisation) of the chapter. In other words, your introduction needs to give the reader a taste of what’s to come, and how you’re going to lay that out. Essentially, you should provide the reader with a high-level roadmap of your chapter to give them a taste of the journey that lies ahead.

Here’s an example of the layout visualised in a literature review introduction:

Your introduction should also outline your topic (including any tricky terminology or jargon) and provide an explanation of the scope of your literature review – in other words, what you  will   and  won’t   be covering (the delimitations ). This helps ringfence your review and achieve a clear focus . The clearer and narrower your focus, the deeper you can dive into the topic (which is typically where the magic lies). 

Depending on the nature of your project, you could also present your stance or point of view at this stage. In other words, after grappling with the literature you’ll have an opinion about what the trends and concerns are in the field as well as what’s lacking. The introduction section can then present these ideas so that it is clear to examiners that you’re aware of how your research connects with existing knowledge .

2: The Body Section

The body of your literature review is the centre of your work. This is where you’ll present, analyse, evaluate and synthesise the existing research. In other words, this is where you’re going to earn (or lose) the most marks. Therefore, it’s important to carefully think about how you will organise your discussion to present it in a clear way. 

The body of your literature review should do just as the description of this chapter suggests. It should “review” the literature – in other words, identify, analyse, and synthesise it. So, when thinking about structuring your literature review, you need to think about which structural approach will provide the best “review” for your specific type of research and objectives (we’ll get to this shortly).

There are (broadly speaking)  three options  for organising your literature review.

Option 1: Chronological (according to date)

Organising the literature chronologically is one of the simplest ways to structure your literature review. You start with what was published first and work your way through the literature until you reach the work published most recently. Pretty straightforward.

The benefit of this option is that it makes it easy to discuss the developments and debates in the field as they emerged over time. Organising your literature chronologically also allows you to highlight how specific articles or pieces of work might have changed the course of the field – in other words, which research has had the most impact . Therefore, this approach is very useful when your research is aimed at understanding how the topic has unfolded over time and is often used by scholars in the field of history. That said, this approach can be utilised by anyone that wants to explore change over time .

For example , if a student of politics is investigating how the understanding of democracy has evolved over time, they could use the chronological approach to provide a narrative that demonstrates how this understanding has changed through the ages.

Here are some questions you can ask yourself to help you structure your literature review chronologically.

• What is the earliest literature published relating to this topic?
• How has the field changed over time? Why?
• What are the most recent discoveries/theories?

In some ways, chronology plays a part whichever way you decide to structure your literature review, because you will always, to a certain extent, be analysing how the literature has developed. However, with the chronological approach, the emphasis is very firmly on how the discussion has evolved over time , as opposed to how all the literature links together (which we’ll discuss next ).

Option 2: Thematic (grouped by theme)

The thematic approach to structuring a literature review means organising your literature by theme or category – for example, by independent variables (i.e. factors that have an impact on a specific outcome).

As you’ve been collecting and synthesising literature , you’ll likely have started seeing some themes or patterns emerging. You can then use these themes or patterns as a structure for your body discussion. The thematic approach is the most common approach and is useful for structuring literature reviews in most fields.

For example, if you were researching which factors contributed towards people trusting an organisation, you might find themes such as consumers’ perceptions of an organisation’s competence, benevolence and integrity. Structuring your literature review thematically would mean structuring your literature review’s body section to discuss each of these themes, one section at a time.

Here are some questions to ask yourself when structuring your literature review by themes:

• Are there any patterns that have come to light in the literature?
• What are the central themes and categories used by the researchers?
• Do I have enough evidence of these themes?

PS – you can see an example of a thematically structured literature review in our literature review sample walkthrough video here.

Option 3: Methodological

The methodological option is a way of structuring your literature review by the research methodologies used . In other words, organising your discussion based on the angle from which each piece of research was approached – for example, qualitative , quantitative or mixed  methodologies.

Structuring your literature review by methodology can be useful if you are drawing research from a variety of disciplines and are critiquing different methodologies. The point of this approach is to question  how  existing research has been conducted, as opposed to  what  the conclusions and/or findings the research were.

For example, a sociologist might centre their research around critiquing specific fieldwork practices. Their literature review will then be a summary of the fieldwork methodologies used by different studies.

Here are some questions you can ask yourself when structuring your literature review according to methodology:

• Which methodologies have been utilised in this field?
• Which methodology is the most popular (and why)?
• What are the strengths and weaknesses of the various methodologies?
• How can the existing methodologies inform my own methodology?

3: The Conclusion Section

Once you’ve completed the body section of your literature review using one of the structural approaches we discussed above, you’ll need to “wrap up” your literature review and pull all the pieces together to set the direction for the rest of your dissertation or thesis.

The conclusion is where you’ll present the key findings of your literature review. In this section, you should emphasise the research that is especially important to your research questions and highlight the gaps that exist in the literature. Based on this, you need to make it clear what you will add to the literature – in other words, justify your own research by showing how it will help fill one or more of the gaps you just identified.

Last but not least, if it’s your intention to develop a conceptual framework for your dissertation or thesis, the conclusion section is a good place to present this.

Example: Thematically Structured Review

In the video below, we unpack a literature review chapter so that you can see an example of a thematically structure review in practice.

Let’s Recap

In this article, we’ve  discussed how to structure your literature review for maximum impact. Here’s a quick recap of what  you need to keep in mind when deciding on your literature review structure:

• Just like other chapters, your literature review needs a clear introduction , body and conclusion .
• The introduction section should provide an overview of what you will discuss in your literature review.
• The body section of your literature review can be organised by chronology , theme or methodology . The right structural approach depends on what you’re trying to achieve with your research.
• The conclusion section should draw together the key findings of your literature review and link them to your research questions.

If you’re ready to get started, be sure to download our free literature review template to fast-track your chapter outline.

Psst… there’s more!

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

28 Comments

Great work. This is exactly what I was looking for and helps a lot together with your previous post on literature review. One last thing is missing: a link to a great literature chapter of an journal article (maybe with comments of the different sections in this review chapter). Do you know any great literature review chapters?

I agree with you Marin… A great piece

I agree with Marin. This would be quite helpful if you annotate a nicely structured literature from previously published research articles.

Awesome article for my research.

I thank you immensely for this wonderful guide

It is indeed thought and supportive work for the futurist researcher and students

Very educative and good time to get guide. Thank you

Great work, very insightful. Thank you.

Thanks for this wonderful presentation. My question is that do I put all the variables into a single conceptual framework or each hypothesis will have it own conceptual framework?

Thank you very much, very helpful

This is very educative and precise . Thank you very much for dropping this kind of write up .

Pheeww, so damn helpful, thank you for this informative piece.

I’m doing a research project topic ; stool analysis for parasitic worm (enteric) worm, how do I structure it, thanks.

comprehensive explanation. Help us by pasting the URL of some good “literature review” for better understanding.

great piece. thanks for the awesome explanation. it is really worth sharing. I have a little question, if anyone can help me out, which of the options in the body of literature can be best fit if you are writing an architectural thesis that deals with design?

I am doing a research on nanofluids how can l structure it?

Beautifully clear.nThank you!

Lucid! Thankyou!

Brilliant work, well understood, many thanks

I like how this was so clear with simple language 😊😊 thank you so much 😊 for these information 😊

Insightful. I was struggling to come up with a sensible literature review but this has been really helpful. Thank you!

You have given thought-provoking information about the review of the literature.

Thank you. It has made my own research better and to impart your work to students I teach

I learnt a lot from this teaching. It’s a great piece.

I am doing research on EFL teacher motivation for his/her job. How Can I structure it? Is there any detailed template, additional to this?

You are so cool! I do not think I’ve read through something like this before. So nice to find somebody with some genuine thoughts on this issue. Seriously.. thank you for starting this up. This site is one thing that is required on the internet, someone with a little originality!

I’m asked to do conceptual, theoretical and empirical literature, and i just don’t know how to structure it

Asking questions are actually fastidious thing if you are not understanding anything fully, but this article presents good understanding yet.

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

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

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

• Print Friendly

15 Literature Review Examples

Chris Drew (PhD)

Dr. Chris Drew is the founder of the Helpful Professor. He holds a PhD in education and has published over 20 articles in scholarly journals. He is the former editor of the Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education. [Image Descriptor: Photo of Chris]

Learn about our Editorial Process

Literature reviews are a necessary step in a research process and often required when writing your research proposal . They involve gathering, analyzing, and evaluating existing knowledge about a topic in order to find gaps in the literature where future studies will be needed.

Ideally, once you have completed your literature review, you will be able to identify how your research project can build upon and extend existing knowledge in your area of study.

Generally, for my undergraduate research students, I recommend a narrative review, where themes can be generated in order for the students to develop sufficient understanding of the topic so they can build upon the themes using unique methods or novel research questions.

If you’re in the process of writing a literature review, I have developed a literature review template for you to use – it’s a huge time-saver and walks you through how to write a literature review step-by-step:

Get your time-saving templates here to write your own literature review.

Literature Review Examples

For the following types of literature review, I present an explanation and overview of the type, followed by links to some real-life literature reviews on the topics.

1. Narrative Review Examples

Also known as a traditional literature review, the narrative review provides a broad overview of the studies done on a particular topic.

It often includes both qualitative and quantitative studies and may cover a wide range of years.

The narrative review’s purpose is to identify commonalities, gaps, and contradictions in the literature .

I recommend to my students that they should gather their studies together, take notes on each study, then try to group them by themes that form the basis for the review (see my step-by-step instructions at the end of the article).

Example Study

Title: Communication in healthcare: a narrative review of the literature and practical recommendations

Citation: Vermeir, P., Vandijck, D., Degroote, S., Peleman, R., Verhaeghe, R., Mortier, E., … & Vogelaers, D. (2015). Communication in healthcare: a narrative review of the literature and practical recommendations. International journal of clinical practice , 69 (11), 1257-1267.

Source: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/ijcp.12686  

Overview: This narrative review analyzed themes emerging from 69 articles about communication in healthcare contexts. Five key themes were found in the literature: poor communication can lead to various negative outcomes, discontinuity of care, compromise of patient safety, patient dissatisfaction, and inefficient use of resources. After presenting the key themes, the authors recommend that practitioners need to approach healthcare communication in a more structured way, such as by ensuring there is a clear understanding of who is in charge of ensuring effective communication in clinical settings.

Other Examples

• Burnout in United States Healthcare Professionals: A Narrative Review (Reith, 2018) – read here
• Examining the Presence, Consequences, and Reduction of Implicit Bias in Health Care: A Narrative Review (Zestcott, Blair & Stone, 2016) – read here
• A Narrative Review of School-Based Physical Activity for Enhancing Cognition and Learning (Mavilidi et al., 2018) – read here
• A narrative review on burnout experienced by medical students and residents (Dyrbye & Shanafelt, 2015) – read here

2. Systematic Review Examples

This type of literature review is more structured and rigorous than a narrative review. It involves a detailed and comprehensive plan and search strategy derived from a set of specified research questions.

The key way you’d know a systematic review compared to a narrative review is in the methodology: the systematic review will likely have a very clear criteria for how the studies were collected, and clear explanations of exclusion/inclusion criteria. 

The goal is to gather the maximum amount of valid literature on the topic, filter out invalid or low-quality reviews, and minimize bias. Ideally, this will provide more reliable findings, leading to higher-quality conclusions and recommendations for further research.

You may note from the examples below that the ‘method’ sections in systematic reviews tend to be much more explicit, often noting rigid inclusion/exclusion criteria and exact keywords used in searches.

Title: The importance of food naturalness for consumers: Results of a systematic review  

Citation: Roman, S., Sánchez-Siles, L. M., & Siegrist, M. (2017). The importance of food naturalness for consumers: Results of a systematic review. Trends in food science & technology , 67 , 44-57.

Source: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S092422441730122X  

Overview: This systematic review included 72 studies of food naturalness to explore trends in the literature about its importance for consumers. Keywords used in the data search included: food, naturalness, natural content, and natural ingredients. Studies were included if they examined consumers’ preference for food naturalness and contained empirical data. The authors found that the literature lacks clarity about how naturalness is defined and measured, but also found that food consumption is significantly influenced by perceived naturalness of goods.

• A systematic review of research on online teaching and learning from 2009 to 2018 (Martin, Sun & Westine, 2020) – read here
• Where Is Current Research on Blockchain Technology? (Yli-Huumo et al., 2016) – read here
• Universities—industry collaboration: A systematic review (Ankrah & Al-Tabbaa, 2015) – read here
• Internet of Things Applications: A Systematic Review (Asghari, Rahmani & Javadi, 2019) – read here

3. Meta-analysis

This is a type of systematic review that uses statistical methods to combine and summarize the results of several studies.

Due to its robust methodology, a meta-analysis is often considered the ‘gold standard’ of secondary research , as it provides a more precise estimate of a treatment effect than any individual study contributing to the pooled analysis.

Furthermore, by aggregating data from a range of studies, a meta-analysis can identify patterns, disagreements, or other interesting relationships that may have been hidden in individual studies.

This helps to enhance the generalizability of findings, making the conclusions drawn from a meta-analysis particularly powerful and informative for policy and practice.

Title: Cholesterol and Alzheimer’s Disease Risk: A Meta-Meta-Analysis

Citation: Sáiz-Vazquez, O., Puente-Martínez, A., Ubillos-Landa, S., Pacheco-Bonrostro, J., & Santabárbara, J. (2020). Cholesterol and Alzheimer’s disease risk: a meta-meta-analysis. Brain sciences, 10(6), 386.

Source: https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci10060386  

O verview: This study examines the relationship between cholesterol and Alzheimer’s disease (AD). Researchers conducted a systematic search of meta-analyses and reviewed several databases, collecting 100 primary studies and five meta-analyses to analyze the connection between cholesterol and Alzheimer’s disease. They find that the literature compellingly demonstrates that low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels significantly influence the development of Alzheimer’s disease.

• The power of feedback revisited: A meta-analysis of educational feedback research (Wisniewski, Zierer & Hattie, 2020) – read here
• How Much Does Education Improve Intelligence? A Meta-Analysis (Ritchie & Tucker-Drob, 2018) – read here
• A meta-analysis of factors related to recycling (Geiger et al., 2019) – read here
• Stress management interventions for police officers and recruits (Patterson, Chung & Swan, 2014) – read here

Other Types of Reviews

• Scoping Review: This type of review is used to map the key concepts underpinning a research area and the main sources and types of evidence available. It can be undertaken as stand-alone projects in their own right, or as a precursor to a systematic review.
• Rapid Review: This type of review accelerates the systematic review process in order to produce information in a timely manner. This is achieved by simplifying or omitting stages of the systematic review process.
• Integrative Review: This review method is more inclusive than others, allowing for the simultaneous inclusion of experimental and non-experimental research. The goal is to more comprehensively understand a particular phenomenon.
• Critical Review: This is similar to a narrative review but requires a robust understanding of both the subject and the existing literature. In a critical review, the reviewer not only summarizes the existing literature, but also evaluates its strengths and weaknesses. This is common in the social sciences and humanities .
• State-of-the-Art Review: This considers the current level of advancement in a field or topic and makes recommendations for future research directions. This type of review is common in technological and scientific fields but can be applied to any discipline.

How to Write a Narrative Review (Tips for Undergrad Students)

Most undergraduate students conducting a capstone research project will be writing narrative reviews. Below is a five-step process for conducting a simple review of the literature for your project.

• Search for Relevant Literature: Use scholarly databases related to your field of study, provided by your university library, along with appropriate search terms to identify key scholarly articles that have been published on your topic.
• Evaluate and Select Sources: Filter the source list by selecting studies that are directly relevant and of sufficient quality, considering factors like credibility , objectivity, accuracy, and validity.
• Analyze and Synthesize: Review each source and summarize the main arguments  in one paragraph (or more, for postgrad). Keep these summaries in a table.
• Identify Themes: With all studies summarized, group studies that share common themes, such as studies that have similar findings or methodologies.
• Write the Review: Write your review based upon the themes or subtopics you have identified. Give a thorough overview of each theme, integrating source data, and conclude with a summary of the current state of knowledge then suggestions for future research based upon your evaluation of what is lacking in the literature.

Literature reviews don’t have to be as scary as they seem. Yes, they are difficult and require a strong degree of comprehension of academic studies. But it can be feasibly done through following a structured approach to data collection and analysis. With my undergraduate research students (who tend to conduct small-scale qualitative studies ), I encourage them to conduct a narrative literature review whereby they can identify key themes in the literature. Within each theme, students can critique key studies and their strengths and limitations , in order to get a lay of the land and come to a point where they can identify ways to contribute new insights to the existing academic conversation on their topic.

Ankrah, S., & Omar, A. T. (2015). Universities–industry collaboration: A systematic review. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 31(3), 387-408.

Asghari, P., Rahmani, A. M., & Javadi, H. H. S. (2019). Internet of Things applications: A systematic review. Computer Networks , 148 , 241-261.

Dyrbye, L., & Shanafelt, T. (2016). A narrative review on burnout experienced by medical students and residents. Medical education , 50 (1), 132-149.

Geiger, J. L., Steg, L., Van Der Werff, E., & Ünal, A. B. (2019). A meta-analysis of factors related to recycling. Journal of environmental psychology , 64 , 78-97.

Martin, F., Sun, T., & Westine, C. D. (2020). A systematic review of research on online teaching and learning from 2009 to 2018. Computers & education , 159 , 104009.

Mavilidi, M. F., Ruiter, M., Schmidt, M., Okely, A. D., Loyens, S., Chandler, P., & Paas, F. (2018). A narrative review of school-based physical activity for enhancing cognition and learning: The importance of relevancy and integration. Frontiers in psychology , 2079.

Patterson, G. T., Chung, I. W., & Swan, P. W. (2014). Stress management interventions for police officers and recruits: A meta-analysis. Journal of experimental criminology , 10 , 487-513.

Reith, T. P. (2018). Burnout in United States healthcare professionals: a narrative review. Cureus , 10 (12).

Ritchie, S. J., & Tucker-Drob, E. M. (2018). How much does education improve intelligence? A meta-analysis. Psychological science , 29 (8), 1358-1369.

Roman, S., Sánchez-Siles, L. M., & Siegrist, M. (2017). The importance of food naturalness for consumers: Results of a systematic review. Trends in food science & technology , 67 , 44-57.

Sáiz-Vazquez, O., Puente-Martínez, A., Ubillos-Landa, S., Pacheco-Bonrostro, J., & Santabárbara, J. (2020). Cholesterol and Alzheimer’s disease risk: a meta-meta-analysis. Brain sciences, 10(6), 386.

Vermeir, P., Vandijck, D., Degroote, S., Peleman, R., Verhaeghe, R., Mortier, E., … & Vogelaers, D. (2015). Communication in healthcare: a narrative review of the literature and practical recommendations. International journal of clinical practice , 69 (11), 1257-1267.

Wisniewski, B., Zierer, K., & Hattie, J. (2020). The power of feedback revisited: A meta-analysis of educational feedback research. Frontiers in Psychology , 10 , 3087.

Yli-Huumo, J., Ko, D., Choi, S., Park, S., & Smolander, K. (2016). Where is current research on blockchain technology?—a systematic review. PloS one , 11 (10), e0163477.

Zestcott, C. A., Blair, I. V., & Stone, J. (2016). Examining the presence, consequences, and reduction of implicit bias in health care: a narrative review. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations , 19 (4), 528-542

• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd/ 101 Hidden Talents Examples
• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd/ 15 Green Flags in a Relationship
• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd/ 15 Signs you're Burnt Out, Not Lazy
• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd/ 15 Toxic Things Parents Say to their Children

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

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

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

3 Planning Your Research: Reviewing the Literature and Developing Questions

ESSENTIAL QUESTIONS

• What is relevant literature? What are the best ways to find it?
• What are the best ways to organize your relevant literature?
• What are the intended outcomes of reviewing your relevant literature?

Nearly all research begins with a review of literature that is relevant to the topic of research, even if it is only a casual review. Reviewing the available literature on your topic is a vital step in the research process. The literature review process provides an anchor for your inquiry. O’Leary (2004, p. 66) states, the “production of new knowledge is fundamentally dependent on past knowledge” because “it is virtually impossible for researchers to add to a body of literature if they are not conversant with it.” By reviewing the literature in the initial stages of the inquiry process, researchers are better able to:

• Understand their topic;
• Develop and focus a topic;
• Provide a clear rationale for, or better situate, their topic;
• Fine-tune their research questions.

In terms of thinking about methodology and the actual research process, reviewing the literature can help researchers:

• Identify well-vetted data collection and analysis methods on their topic;
• Determine whether to replicate a previous study, or develop a completely new study;
• Add rigor and validity to the research by validating the topic, methods, and significance.

Lastly, reviewing the literature also helps the researcher make sense of their findings, in both their field of study and in their educational context, by:

• Assessing whether the findings correlate with findings from another study;
• Determining which of the findings are different than previous studies;
• Determining which of the findings are unique to the researcher’s educational context. [1]

As you may see, the literature review is the backbone, anchor, or foundation of your research study. Overall the review of literature helps you answer three important questions that are the result of the bullet points outlined above. The literature review helps you answer the following:

• What do we know about your topic?
• What do we not know about your topic?
• How does your research address the gap between what we know and what we don’t about your topic?

After reviewing the literature, if you are able to answer those three questions, you will have a very clear and well-rationalized justification for your inquiry. If you cannot answer those questions, then you should probably keep reviewing the literature by looking for related topics or synonyms of major concepts.

While an extensive review of the literature about your topic of study is expected, you should also be realistic as to what you are able to manage. For topics that have a lot of research literature available, make sure you establish parameters for your research, such as:

• Temporal (e.g., only articles in the last 5 or 10 years)
• Content Area (e.g., only in science and math classrooms)
• Age or grade (e.g., only middle school classrooms)
• Research Subject (e.g., girls only, teachers, struggling readers)

These categories provide only a few examples, but parameters like these can make your review of literature much more manageable and your study much more focused.

What Types of Literature Should You Consider in Your Review?

It is helpful to consider the characteristics, purposes, and outcomes of different types of literature. Below are four broad categories I identify within educational research literature. I want to emphasize that my categories are in no way definitive, and only represent my own understanding.

Policy-Based Literature

Policy-based literature includes official documents that outline education policy with which the practitioner needs to be familiar. For example, the Common Core Standards or Content Standards are often refenced in articles to situate the need for research in relation to the standards; if my topic was on place-based education with middle school social studies students, I might have to look at national social studies standards. There also may be initiatives launched by organizations or researchers that become accepted practice. The documents that launch these initiatives (e.g., reports, articles, speeches) would also be useful to review. An example would be the Report of the National Reading Panel: Teaching Children to Read report from the National Reading Panel. These documents may provide rationale, based on the theories and concepts they utilize, and they may provide new ways of thinking about your topic. Similarly, if your topic is based on the local context, recent newspaper articles could also provide policy-type insights. All of these policy-based insights will be useful in providing the landscape or background for your work.

Theoretical Literature

Once you have identified your theoretical perspective, it is also important to locate your research within the appropriate theoretical literature. Many of you may be engaged in highly practice-based or small-scale research and wonder if you need a theoretical basis in your literature review. Regardless of the extent of your project, theoretical literature will help with the rigor and validity of your study and will help identify any theoretical views that underlie your topic. For example, if your study focuses on the place-based education in enhancing social studies students’ learning, it is highly probable that you would cite Kolb’s (1984/2014) work on Experiential Learning. By using Kolb’s work, you situate your research theoretically in the area of experiential learning.

Applicable Literature

Applicable literature will account for the bulk of your literature review. The previous two types of literature provide indication as to where your research is rationalized professionally and situated theoretically. Applicable literature will mainly come from journals related to your specific field of study. If I was doing a study in a social studies classroom, I would look at the journals The Social Studies, Social Education, and Social Studies Research and Practice . Use Google Scholar or your university library databases to examine literature in your specific area. When using these search engines and databases, start as specific as possible with your topic and related concepts. Using the example of place-based learning from above, I would search for “place-based learning” and “social studies” and “middle school” and “historic sites”. If I did not find many articles with this first search, then I would remove “historic sites” and search again. Books or handbooks on research may also have some useful studies to support your literature review section.

Methodological Literature

When sharing or reporting your work, you will want to review and cite research methodology literature to justify the methods you chose. When reading other research articles, pay attention to the research methods used by researchers. It is especially important to find articles that use and cite action research methodology. This type of literature will provide further support of your data gathering and analysis methods. Again, your methods should fit within your theoretical and epistemological stances. In addition, you’ll want to review data collection methods and potentially borrow or adapt rubrics or surveys from other studies.

Sources of Relevant Literature

When searching for these four types of literature, there are two ways to think about possible sources:

• primary sources include government publications, policy documents, research papers, dissertations, conference presentations and institutional occasional papers with accounts of research;
• secondary sources use primary sources as references, such as papers written for professional conferences and journals, books written for practicing professionals and book reviews. This is often called “reference mining” as you look through the reference lists of other studies and then return to the primary source that was cited.

Secondary sources are often just as valuable as primary sources, or potentially more valuable. When beginning your search, secondary sources can provide links to a wealth of primary sources that the secondary source author has already vetted for you, and likely with similar intentions. This is especially true of research handbooks. You will come across both types of literature wherever you search, and they both provide a landscape for your topic and add value to your literature review.

Regardless of being a primary or secondary source, you want to make sure the literature you review is peer-reviewed. Peer-reviewed simply means that the article was reviewed by two to three scholars in the field before it was published. Books, or edited books, would have also gone through a peer-review process. We often recommend teachers to look at professional books from reputable publishing companies and professional organizations, such as ASCD, NCTE, NCTM, or NCSS. This is a way for scholars to objectively review each other’s work to maintain a high level of quality and ethics in the publication of research. Most databases have mostly peer-reviewed journals, and often provide a filter to sort out the non-peer-reviewed journals.

Using the Internet

The internet is a valuable research tool and is becoming increasingly efficient and reliable in providing peer-reviewed literature. Sites like Google Scholar are especially useful. Often, and depending on the topic, the downside of internet-based searches is that it will generate thousands or millions of sources. This can be overwhelming, especially for new researchers, and you will have to develop ways to narrow down the results.

Professional organization websites will also have resources or links to sources that have typically been vetted. With all internet sources, you should evaluate the information for credibility and authority.

Evaluating sources from the Internet

Evaluating internet sources is a whole field of study and research within itself, and an in-depth discussion would take away from the focus of this book. However, O’ Dochartaigh (2007) provides a chapter to help guide the internet source evaluation process. Here is a brief summary, based on O’ Dochartaigh’s book, to give you a general idea of the task of evaluating sources:

• Examine if the material belongs to an advocacy group. Many times, these sources are fine, however, they require extra examination for bias or funding interests.
• As mentioned above, many academic papers are published in refereed journals which are subject to peer-review. Papers found on academic or university websites are typically refereed in some manner; however, some papers are posted by academics on their personal sites and have not been reviewed by other academics. Papers published solely by academics or other experts require further scrutiny before citing.
• When you are reviewing newspaper and magazine articles from the internet be weary of potential conflicts of interest based on the political stance of that periodical.

Therefore, it is wise to consider the objectivity of any source you find on the internet before you accept the literature.

We always recommend that students consider a few questions in their evaluation of sources, which are similar to the formal questions outlined by O’ Dochartaigh (2007):

• Is it clear who is responsible for the document?
• Is there any information about the person or organization responsible for the page?
• Is there a copyright statement?
• Does it have other publications that reinforce its authority?
• Are the sources clearly listed so they can be verified?
• Is there an editorial involvement?
• Are the spelling and grammar correct?
• Are biases and affiliations clearly stated?
• Are there dates for when the document was last updated or revised?

Organizing your Literature

When you begin, here are some things to think about as your read the literature. Again, these are not definitive, but merely provided for guidance. These questions are especially focused on other action research literature:

Questions to Think about as You Examine the Literature

• What was the context of their research?
• Who was involved? Was it a collaborative project?
• Was the choice of using action research as a method justified? Are any models discussed?
• What ‘actions’ actually took place?
• How was data gathered?
• How was data analyzed?
• Were ethical considerations addressed? How?
• What were the conclusions? Were they justified using appropriate evidence?
• Was the report accessible? Useful?
• Is it possible to replicate the study?

Regardless of the amount of literature you review, your challenge will be to organize the literature in way that is manageable and easy to reference. It is important to keep a record of what you read and how it relates conceptually to your topic. Some researchers even use the questions above to organize their literature. It is easy to read and think about the content of an article by making brief notes, however, this is often not enough to initially begin to develop your study or write about your findings. I will state the obvious here: organizing your literature search efficiently from the start is vital!

No matter how you choose to record or document the articles you read (e.g., paper, computer, photo), I would suggest thinking about the format in terms of index cards. Index cards are a very practical and simple model because the space limits you to be precise in recording vital information about each article. I typically create a document on my computer, allow each article the space of an index card, and focus on recording the following information:

• Journal/Book Chapter Title
• Main Arguments/Key findings
• Pertinent Quote(s)
• Implications
• Connective Points (how does it relate to my work and/or other articles)

I find that these aspects provide the information I need to be refreshed on the article and to be able to use it upon review.

There are also a lot of computer applications that are very useful and efficient in managing your literature. For example, Mendeley © provides comprehensive support for reviewing literature, even allowing you to store the article itself and make comments or highlights in text. There are also many citation apps that are helpful if you continue this research agenda and use roughly the same literature for each project.

Using the Literature

Think ahead to when you have collected and read a good amount of literature on your topic. You are now ready to use the literature to think about your topic, your research question, and the methods you plan to use. It might be helpful to peek ahead to Chapter 7 where I discuss writing the literature review for a report to give you an idea of the end goal. The primary purpose of engaging in a literature review is to provide knowledge to construct a framework for understanding the landscape of your topic. I often suggest for students to think of it as constructing an argument for your research decisions, or as if you are telling a story of how we got to this point in researching your topic. Either way you are situating your research in what we know and don’t know about your topic.

Naturally we tend to think about, and potentially write about, the literature in relation to the article’s author (e.g. Clark and Porath (2016) found that…). However, more commonly today in educational research you will find that literature reviews are organized by themes. It can be a little more organic to think about literature in terms of themes because they emerge or become more defined as you read. Also thinking thematically allows the articles to naturally connect and build on each other, whereas thinking in terms of authors can fragment thinking about the topic. In terms of thinking thematically, here are some guidelines:

• Identify the significant themes that have emerged organically from the literature review. These themes would be concepts or ideas that you typed or wrote down in your note-taking or management system.
• Introduce the common concepts or ideas by themes, instead of by authors’ disjointed viewpoints. Paragraphs in a thematic literature review begin like: The research on teacher self-efficacy has identified several key factors that contribute to strong self-efficacy… .
• Lastly, once you have introduced each theme and explained it, then present evidence from your readings to demonstrate the parameters of the knowledge on the theme, including areas of agreement and disagreement among researchers. Using the evidence, explain what the evidence for the theme means to your topic and any of your own relational or critical commentary.

Another way to think about structuring a literature review is a funnel model. A funnel model goes from broad topic, to sub-topics, to link to the study being undertaken. You can think of a literature review as a broad argument using mini-arguments. To use the funnel model, list your topic and the related subtopics, then design questions to answer with the literature. For example if our topic was discussion-based online learning, we might ask the following questions before reading the literature:

• Why is discussion important in learning?
• How does discussion support the development of social, cognitive, and teacher presence in an online course?
• What does research say about the use of traditional discussion boards ?
• What does the research say about asynchronous, video-based discussion ?
• How have other researchers compared written and video responses?
• How does this literature review link to my study?

O’Leary (2004) provides an interesting representation and model of the purpose for the literature review in the research process, in Figure 3.1. We will leave this for you to think about before moving on to Chapter 4.

• We will talk about this aspect of literature reviews further in Chapters 6 and 7. ↵

Action Research Copyright © by J. Spencer Clark; Suzanne Porath; Julie Thiele; and Morgan Jobe is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

Have a language expert improve your writing

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

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

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

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

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

There are five key steps to writing a literature review:

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

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

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

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

Table of contents

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

• Quick Run-through
• Step 1 & 2

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

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

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

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

Prevent plagiarism, run a free check.

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

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

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

Download Word doc Download Google doc

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

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

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

Make a list of keywords

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

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

Search for relevant sources

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

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

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

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

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

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

For each publication, ask yourself:

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

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

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

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

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

Take notes and cite your sources

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chronological

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

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

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

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

Methodological

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

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

Theoretical

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

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

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

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

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

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

As you write, make sure to follow these tips:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cite this Scribbr article

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

McCombes, S. (2022, June 07). What is a Literature Review? | Guide, Template, & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved 26 August 2024, from https://www.scribbr.co.uk/thesis-dissertation/literature-review/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

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

• Libraries & Collections
• News & Events
• Process: Literature Reviews
• Literature Review
• Managing Sources

Ask a Librarian

Does your assignment or publication require that you write a literature review? This guide is intended to help you understand what a literature is, why it is worth doing, and some quick tips composing one.

Understanding Literature Reviews

What is a literature review  .

Typically, a literature review is a written discussion that examines publications about  a particular subject area or topic. Depending on disciplines, publications, or authors a literature review may be: 

A summary of sources An organized presentation of sources A synthesis or interpretation of sources An evaluative analysis of sources

A Literature Review may be part of a process or a product. It may be:

A part of your research process A part of your final research publication An independent publication

Why do a literature review?

The Literature Review will place your research in context. It will help you and your readers:  

Locate patterns, relationships, connections, agreements, disagreements, & gaps in understanding Identify methodological and theoretical foundations Identify landmark and exemplary works Situate your voice in a broader conversation with other writers, thinkers, and scholars

The Literature Review will aid your research process. It will help you to:

Establish your knowledge Understand what has been said Define your questions Establish a relevant methodology Refine your voice Situate your voice in the conversation

What does a literature review look like?

The Literature Review structure and organization may include sections such as:  

An introduction or overview A body or organizational sub-divisions A conclusion or an explanation of significance

The body of a literature review may be organized in several ways, including:

Chronologically: organized by date of publication Methodologically: organized by type of research method used Thematically: organized by concept, trend, or theme Ideologically: organized by belief, ideology, or school of thought

• Find a focus
• Find models
• Review your target publication
• Track citations
• Read critically
• Manage your citations
• Ask friends, faculty, and librarians

Additional Sources

• Reviewing the literature. Project Planner.
• Literature Review: By UNC Writing Center
• PhD on Track
• CU Graduate Students Thesis & Dissertation Guidance
• CU Honors Thesis Guidance

• Next: Managing Sources >>
• University of Colorado Boulder Libraries
• Research Guides
• Research Strategies
• Last Updated: Jun 20, 2024 3:23 PM
• URL: https://libguides.colorado.edu/strategies/litreview
• © Regents of the University of Colorado

Literature Reviews

• Getting started

What is a literature review?

Why conduct a literature review, stages of a literature review, lit reviews: an overview (video), check out these books.

• Types of reviews
• 1. Define your research question
• 2. Plan your search
• 3. Search the literature
• 4. Organize your results
• 5. Synthesize your findings
• 6. Write the review
• Artificial intelligence (AI) tools
• Thompson Writing Studio This link opens in a new window
• Need to write a systematic review? This link opens in a new window

Guide Owner

Contact a Librarian

Ask a Librarian

Definition: A literature review is a systematic examination and synthesis of existing scholarly research on a specific topic or subject.

Purpose: It serves to provide a comprehensive overview of the current state of knowledge within a particular field.

Analysis: Involves critically evaluating and summarizing key findings, methodologies, and debates found in academic literature.

Identifying Gaps: Aims to pinpoint areas where there is a lack of research or unresolved questions, highlighting opportunities for further investigation.

Contextualization: Enables researchers to understand how their work fits into the broader academic conversation and contributes to the existing body of knowledge.

tl;dr  A literature review critically examines and synthesizes existing scholarly research and publications on a specific topic to provide a comprehensive understanding of the current state of knowledge in the field.

What is a literature review NOT?

❌ An annotated bibliography

❌ Original research

❌ A summary

❌ Something to be conducted at the end of your research

❌ An opinion piece

❌ A chronological compilation of studies

The reason for conducting a literature review is to:

Literature Reviews: An Overview for Graduate Students

While this 9-minute video from NCSU is geared toward graduate students, it is useful for anyone conducting a literature review.

Writing the literature review: A practical guide

Available 3rd floor of Perkins

Writing literature reviews: A guide for students of the social and behavioral sciences

Available online!

So, you have to write a literature review: A guided workbook for engineers

Telling a research story: Writing a literature review

The literature review: Six steps to success

Systematic approaches to a successful literature review

Request from Duke Medical Center Library

Doing a systematic review: A student's guide

• Next: Types of reviews >>
• Last Updated: Aug 20, 2024 3:37 PM
• URL: https://guides.library.duke.edu/litreviews

Services for...

• Faculty & Instructors
• Graduate Students
• Undergraduate Students
• International Students
• Patrons with Disabilities

• Harmful Language Statement
• Re-use & Attribution / Privacy
• Support the Libraries

• Open access
• Published: 23 August 2024

Facilitating co-research: lessons learned from reflection forms within three participatory action research projects

• Helga Emke   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-8675-2577 1 , 3 , 6   na1 ,
• Ann Vandendriessche 2   na1 ,
• Mai Chinapaw 3 , 6 ,
• Benedicte Deforche 2 , 4 ,
• Maïté Verloigne 2 ,
• Teatske Altenburg 3 , 6 &
• Manou Anselma 3 , 5  

Health Research Policy and Systems volume  22 , Article number:  117 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

46 Accesses

Metrics details

Mutual learning and shared decision-making are key elements of Participatory Action Research (PAR), highlighting the important role of the facilitator to support this. This study aims to illustrate how a facilitator can contribute to successful PAR sessions based on the reflection of three PAR projects.

Participatory sessions took place with adolescents for 3–4 school years. After each session ( n  = 252 sessions across three projects), facilitators filled in a reflection form that assessed the group process and their facilitating role. Facilitators independently coded a selection of 135 reflection forms partly deductive and partly inductive based on core PAR principles derived from a pragmatic literature search.

A well-prepared session – for example, including active and creative participatory methods and a clearly stated goal – contributed to efficiency and the necessary flexibility. Making agreements, making sure everyone is heard and taking 'fun-time' appeared important for creating and maintaining a safe, functional and positive atmosphere. Finally, facilitators needed to encourage co-researchers to take the lead and adapt to the group dynamics, to ensure ownership and shared decision-making.

In-depth qualitative analyses of a standardized reflection form used in three different PAR projects resulted in various lessons to support facilitators in collaborating with co-researchers in PAR projects.

Detailed preparation of participatory sessions with multiple scenarios allows the flexibility needed for productive sessions.

Ensuring a positive, safe and functional atmosphere encouraged productive participatory sessions.

Facilitators need to continuously adapt to the characteristics, moods and emotions of co-researchers.

We present an improved reflection form to support facilitators in optimizing their PAR sessions.

Peer Review reports

Introduction

Participatory action research (PAR) is a promising approach to improve health and reduce health inequities. In this approach, there is collaboration and shared decision-making between researchers and the population of interest to develop actions improving that population’s own situation [ 1 ]. Actions developed using PAR are more likely to meet the needs and preferences of the population of interest, and thereby may be more effective than traditional more top-down developed actions [ 2 ]. Mutual learning and respect are essential in the participatory process, with participants’ experiences valued as a legitimate form of knowledge that can influence practice [ 1 ]. In the participatory process, participants are trained as co-researchers to provide them with knowledge, skills and abilities to conduct research in their own particular context and that of their peers [ 1 , 3 ]. Particularly for children and adolescents, participating in PAR and, thus, being a co-researcher can improve their individual development, empowerment and critical awareness of societal issues [ 4 ].

When conducting PAR, there are several core principles to take into account [ 5 ]. Wright and colleagues identified 11 common participatory principles, including that co-research should promote critical reflexivity of co-researchers and academic researchers [ 6 ]. Academic researchers will become better researchers when they reflect on their behaviour, thoughts and co-operation during their collaboration with co-researchers [ 7 ]. This is especially important when academic researchers act as facilitators of the PAR process, for example, by reflecting on power differences between the academic researchers and the co-researchers [ 5 ]. Reflexivity reveals the influence of the facilitator on the PAR process, the generated data and the group dynamics [ 8 ]. However, guidance on how to structurally reflect on and improve the role of the facilitator is currently lacking [ 9 ].

Due to the grant-based funding of academic research, in most projects the overall aim and research questions are already set. Within these boundaries, researchers can and should still promote a shared and dynamic PAR process, endorsing mutual learning and decision-making, where co-researchers can contribute to the best of their potential [ 9 ]. Facilitators who are flexible and open-minded and who have good verbal and written communication skills and the ability to maintain a supportive and encouraging attitude are generally capable to create such a PAR process [ 10 ]. However, apart from more general guidelines [ 5 ], there is currently a lack of data of how PAR can be successfully facilitated. Critical reflection by facilitators can provide insight in success factors of a good PAR session. This insight can further improve future PAR projects.

The current study aims to illustrate how a facilitator can contribute to a successful PAR process based on standardized reflection forms collected in three PAR projects with children and adolescents. This paper presents how a standardized reflection form can inform the facilitators in improving their PAR facilitation in practice, including specific examples, lessons learned and recommendations from the three PAR projects using this form. Based on the analysis of the reflection forms, suggestions will be made to improve the reflection form.

In the following sections, we give a description of each project, the design of the participatory sessions across the three projects, the reflection form and how the forms were coded and analysed based on a pragmatic literature research.

All three projects focused on improving one or multiple energy balance-related behaviours in children and/or adolescents. The leading academic researchers (H.E., A.V., M.A.) collaborated with their co-researchers in so-called Action Teams, consisting of 3–12 children or adolescents. The academic researcher had a facilitating role. Often a second facilitator (e.g. an intern) was present to assist in the process. We obtained a written active informed consent to participate in the participatory process from at least one of the parents or guardians in all three projects and in the LIKE and Healthy sleep project also from the co-researchers themselves. Table 1 presents more information on the three PAR projects and background information of the facilitating researchers. All three researchers had a positive attitude towards both PAR and the healthy behaviour they wanted to promote. The researchers were highly motivated to co-create with children and adolescents and expected empowerment and effective interventions adjusted to the target population to be outcomes of the PAR. Additional File 1 shows an overview of the composition of each Action Team per project, the frequency and duration of sessions and how the co-researchers were recruited.

Design participatory sessions

Across the three PAR projects, sessions were typically structured with a check-in, the main part of the session and a check-out. The check-in was used for an active game for fun and team spirit and to (re)state the goal of the session and project. During the main part of the session the Action Teams worked on the research topic through varying exercises. We used energizers to help the co-researchers regain their focus or energy when needed. An example was letting the co-researchers play rock-paper-scissors with their whole body for a few minutes. The co-researchers suggested or rejected games or energizers when they liked or disliked a specific game or energizer. Additionally, during some sessions, we applied capacity building to teach the co-researchers certain skills. In two of the PAR projects, another academic researcher, announced as a “research expert” was invited and explained research methods and ethics. In all three projects, the co-researchers acquired organizational skills by being intensively involved and taking the lead throughout the PAR process. During the check-out, we encouraged the co-researchers to summarize the session and plan the next session.

Reflection form

The leading academic researchers (H.E., A.V., M.A.) from the three PAR projects used the same standardized reflection form to reflect on the group process as well as on their own role as a facilitator. This form was developed using relevant literature on PAR and the facilitation of group sessions as part of the Kids in Action project in 2016 in Amsterdam, the Netherlands [ 11 ] and later applied in the Healthy Sleep Project in Ghent, Belgium [ 13 ] and the LIKE-project in Amsterdam [ 14 ].

The three facilitating researchers (H.E., A.V., M.A.) filled in the reflection form after each PAR session (Table  2 ). The first part of the reflection form contained 10 items (statements or questions) about the group process, whereas the second part of the reflection form contained 6 items (statements or questions) prompting the facilitator to reflect on their own role as a facilitator. Statements could be answered with −−, −, 0, + or ++, and additional information could be added when necessary. All statements and open questions invited the researcher to reflect on what went well during the session and what could be improved in regard to meeting the principles of participatory research (i.e. “Everyone could give their opinion”) and facilitating collaboration as a team (i.e. “Facilitators had a positive influence on the group atmosphere”).

Data used for analysis included answers to the open questions in the reflection forms as well as the optional additional information provided to the statements. Grading (−−, −, 0, +, ++) of the statements in the reflection forms was not included in the current study. We used thematic analysis by Braun and Clarke to identify, analyze and interpret themes within our qualitative data using the following phases (1) familiarizing of the data, (2) generating initial codes, (3) searching for themes, (4) reviewing themes, (5) defining and naming themes, and 6) producing the report [ 15 ]. First, we started with familiarizing ourselves with our data by (re-)reading several reflection forms filled in by various facilitators. Then, we generated initial codes based on core principles of facilitating a PAR session that were found through a pragmatic literature search, including scientific articles, manuals, guides and frameworks on participatory research, co-creation and facilitation [ 5 , 10 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 ]. We individually searched literature using (scientific) search engines and summarized relevant literature. We discussed the summaries in a face-to-face meeting, and from these we identified guidelines to facilitate the PAR process and clustered the guidelines in themes. Subsequently, we checked whether the defined themes matched the different items of the reflection form, ensuring that the themes would be useful in coding the reflection forms. The defined themes matched most of the items from the reflection form; items that were not represented in the coding book could be added at a later stage while coding.

The three facilitating researchers filled in 252 reflection forms across the three PAR studies (H.E.: 84, A.V.: 69, M.A.: 99). To ensure inclusion of reflection forms on a diversity of PAR sessions, we first sorted the reflection forms by Action Team per school and research phase: (1) the needs assessment phase, (2) the action development phase, and (3) the implementation and evaluation phase, as each Action Team and each phase of the project required a different facilitation approach. For each project, we randomly selected forms from each phase per Action Team until data saturation. Each researcher only coded the reflections forms from the sessions she facilitated, to enable including contextual information and to prevent misinterpretation.

To test and fine-tune the codebook, each researcher searched for themes in three reflection forms from the sessions that she facilitated, using NVivo 11. Then we reviewed the themes, which led to new codes, re-ordering of existing themes and subthemes, and specifying definitions of codes. Afterwards, we individually coded reflection forms from the sessions that we facilitated ourselves (135 in total; H.E.: 41, A.V.: 41, M.A.: 53) using the finalized codebook. To determine whether data saturation was reached, we compared the coded segments. When no additional codes arose during comparison, we concluded that data saturation was reached and no additional reflection forms needed to be included; however, small changes were made in defining and naming the themes in the codebook. For example, similar sub-codes were better defined or merged. Using this final codebook, we checked the coded segments from the reflection forms from our own projects again. Together we discussed the segments of each code and made a summary of the findings per code, which we used to produce the paper.

Additional File 2 presents an overview of the coding scheme. The coding scheme consisted of 10 themes, that were grouped into 3 subthemes: (1) preparing the PAR sessions – including (i) design of the sessions, (ii) guarding the scope of the project, and (iii) facilitation skills; (2) managing a safe, positive and functional atmosphere during PAR sessions – including (iv) ownership, (v) capacity building, (vi) functional atmosphere, (vii) positive atmosphere and (viii) safe atmosphere; (3) dealing with influencing factors – including (ix) circumstances and (x) group dynamics. The results section is structured according to these three themes. For each theme, detailed information and specific examples are given to illustrate the lessons learned. Finally, each theme ends with a recapitulation of lessons learned from the reflection forms, offering a quick overview of lessons learned.

Preparing the sessions

Sessions were more successful when prepared in detail, including which participatory methods to use, a time schedule, a “plan B”, and access to a quiet location where the setup could be changed to fit the session and tasks. A successful meeting entailed reaching all the aims for the meeting within the scheduled time and when decision-making was shared with the co-researchers. Starting a session with explaining the goal of the session and how it fitted the overall aim of the co-research helped to keep the co-researchers involved and motivated. When the goal of the session was not clear for the co-researchers, sessions were more chaotic and difficult to facilitate.

This session wasn’t as well prepared, which shows from the group. It might be a good idea to give a brief overview of what needs to be discussed at the beginning of each session. – Healthy Sleep Project I explained in advance the expectations of this meeting which made it [the aim] clear. Doing so gave me more time to chat and connect with everyone when they were working by themselves. – LIKE project

When a session was well prepared, facilitators could be more flexible and more easily adapt to the circumstances. Examples are adapting an assignment to fit the atmosphere or using the co-researchers’ alternative ideas for the assignment. Preparing a time schedule consisting of a few topics definitively necessary to discuss in that session and a few optional topics for when time was left allowed for more flexibility. Also preparing alternative plans for unexpected influencing factors (see “ Dealing with influencing factors ”) enhanced flexibility, for example when the regular meeting room could not be used and the meeting took place in the school hallway. Active games as part of the check-in also helped co-researchers to be more focused during the session. This was similar for the main part of the session, where active and creative participatory methods ensured that co-researchers enjoyed the session and kept their focus. On the other hand, co-researchers sometimes became too energized from an energizer, and had a hard time to refocus.

Woosh [an energizer] was nice for building a good atmosphere, and as an energizer it enables them to become “energized”. However, I think it was not an ideal exercise for this group, particularly if a more serious task is next. – Healthy Sleep Project

Before the start of a session, the room in which the session would take place was prepared. When sessions were conducted at school, a more informal atmosphere was created by adjusting the setting to not resemble a school setup. Distracting objects were removed out of the room or furniture moved to improve the efficiency of the session. Tables were, for example, spread across the room so subgroups could work together without getting distracted by others (see “ Managing the positive, safe and functional atmosphere during PAR sessions ”). The focus of some co-researchers seemed to improve when going outside or being more physical activity during a session.

Today we were sitting in the sitting area [where children can sit on the floor], which doesn’t work well. On the other hand, we can move around more, compared to sitting at a table, which works better for the more restless individuals. – Kids in Action.

The main lessons from this theme are: (1) prepare and share the structure of the meeting and start each session with explaining the session goal, (2) plan for flexibility, (3) select various active and creative participatory methods, and (4) play with various meeting areas and setups.

Managing the safe, positive and functional atmosphere during PAR sessions

When co-researchers had fun and shared in decision-making, this resulted in more successful sessions in which progress could be made. Therefore, ensuring a safe, positive and functional atmosphere appeared important.

Creating a good relationship with the co-researchers contributed to ensure a safe atmosphere. Making agreements or rules together with the co-researchers at the start of or during the PAR process facilitated a safe and functional atmosphere. Co-researchers were encouraged to think of rules themselves regarding creating and maintaining respectful and fruitful relationships within the group. Examples of agreements included listening to each other or taking turns to talk. The facilitators and co-researchers referred to these agreements when necessary. When difficult situations arose that were not covered by these agreements, the facilitator had to indicate boundaries and be strict to avoid chaos. This did not necessarily create a negative atmosphere: the clarity and structure created by the boundaries actually improved the atmosphere in most cases. Only in some instances was it necessary to address the co-researcher(s) who distorted the session separately after the session. In the case where a co-researcher’s participation had to be ended, this decision was discussed together with the co-researcher, their parents and the school teacher.

[group was misbehaving] You want the working environment to remain healthy, in order to support appropriate behaviour. For instance, to enable this, I established my boundaries, yet remained pleasant in this situation. – Healthy Sleep Project

Furthermore, to ensure a safe atmosphere, one of the most important tasks of facilitators was to make sure that each co-researcher felt acknowledged and heard during the session. In situations where a dominant person took over the conversation and prevented others from expressing themselves, it helped to ask if everyone agreed with what was being said and to address individuals. This sometimes opened unexpected conversations or perspectives. A useful approach was to let all co-researchers write down their opinion and then let everyone share what they had written down, so everyone’s opinion was considered. Being hasty as a facilitator could be a pitfall, as then only the loudest voices were heard and there was less time to show appreciation of other co-researchers. Expressing appreciation to all co-researchers appeared important, as it made them feel acknowledged and it increased their motivation.

Taking time to have fun with the group and getting to know each other rather than being strict to increase efficiency contributed to a positive atmosphere. Playing a game or having an informal conversation sometimes led to deviations from the plan, yet it resulted in a stronger relationship with the co-researchers. Co-researchers often had personal questions for the facilitator; taking the time to answer such questions promoted having an open and strong relationship with the co-researchers, which aided a safe, positive and functional atmosphere. This actually allowed us to be more strict when necessary. Creating a positive atmosphere was sometimes at the expense of a functional atmosphere, but a good team spirit increased the motivation and, thus, the efficiency in the longer term.

I share a lot about myself, am able to laugh along as well as join conversations that others initiate (it really interests me too). It makes for a pleasant atmosphere, but perhaps this is less favourable for focusing purposes. – Healthy Sleep Project We sometimes had to reprimand the others, but maybe we should have been more stern to maintain a better working environment. – Kids in Action It would be nice if they [the adolescents] could listen to each other better without me needing to raise my voice. Therefore, we can perhaps still be more strict or ask them how we can manage that together (refer to the rules?) – LIKE project

Several approaches to moderate the ongoing conversation and guide co-researchers during their thought process stimulated a functional atmosphere in which shared decisions could be made and ideas could be elaborated on. Examples are: asking the co-researchers questions, offering them new angles or summarizing what they had said. It worked even better to ask a co-researcher to summarize what had been said. Co-researchers were also encouraged to think creatively and think of alternatives when an idea appeared not feasible. This was sometimes considered difficult by facilitators because they did not want to immediately destruct an idea and demotivate the co-researchers. This mainly happened in groups with younger co-researchers, who had many ideas but struggled with feasibility, especially in the beginning of their participation. In some groups, especially with co-researchers following vocational education, it was necessary for the facilitators to bring in some ideas as inspiration to facilitate the brainstorm. Co-researchers could then explain why they did or did not like the idea and build on from there.

The process was very smooth and natural. I was able to ask the right questions and leave silences to allow more ideas to surface. I had a good attitude to brainstorming. (We also get training for that at [name organization]). – Healthy Sleep Project I think that, together, we were well engaged with brainstorming. Actually, some of those involved in this had come up with the majority of ideas. In some instances, ideas necessitated adaption, but I do think almost all the ideas came from the children. – Kids in Action

When concrete tasks had to be worked out, it was more functional to split the action group into smaller groups to work on a separate task. Everyone could then contribute more actively, co-researchers worked more focused and personal strengths arose. It was useful to have one facilitator per subgroup if possible, to let subgroups work at different tables or in different rooms, and to think about the subgroup composition. Co-researchers could choose a task or subgroup themselves or were divided by us according to age, sex, strengths and so on. To keep the co-researchers focused, it helped to use visual support during explanations or group discussions, for example, writing or drawing what co-researchers talked about on a whiteboard or flip-over. At the end of the session, subgroups reported to each other what they had worked on using these visual summaries, so that every co-researcher stayed up to date about the progress and they could decide as a group on the next steps. Staying up to date about all decisions in the project was important for the sense of ownership among co-researchers. Therefore, it was also important to inform co-researchers about meetings that took place without them (e.g. between facilitators and school board or advisors) and ask the opinion of co-researchers about decisions that had to be made in response to such meetings.

Finally, encouraging co-researchers to take the lead – by asking them what they wanted to do themselves and giving them as many responsibilities as possible – increased their sense of ownership. This was aided by the time spent on capacity building. Co-researchers were very capable of gaining research and organizational skills. At the end of the session, co-researchers were often asked what they would like to do the following session, which helped to keep them engaged and design sessions that fit their interests. This again had a positive influence on their sense of ownership. When the sense of ownership in co-researchers increased, co-researchers started to be more assertive.

The children cooperated on their own initiative to set up a questionnaire. – Kids in Action I was good at relinquishing control and letting [one of the adolescents] be more in charge. This allowed them to gain some leadership. Nonetheless, I was able to successfully take the lead again when needed. – LIKE project The adolescents often asked each other for advice, engaged in dialogue and came up with solutions for the others. This made it a super interactive session. – Healthy Sleep Project

The main lessons that can be concluded from this theme are: (1) make good agreements or rules together about how to create and maintain a respectful and fruitful relationship within the group, (2) take time to have fun and to get to know each other, (3) guide co-researchers in structuring their ideas, (4) make sure everyone is heard, (5) split the group into smaller subgroups for concrete tasks, (6) be transparent about meetings that take place without the co-researchers being present, and (7) encourage co-researchers to take the lead.

Dealing with influencing factors

The characteristics, moods and emotions of facilitators and the co-researchers often influenced the session and all attendees. For example, when facilitators lacked energy, this reflected on the co-researchers. In addition, co-researchers could, for example, be nervous for exams that were coming up, excited about a good grade or on edge because of bad weather conditions. Those factors were unpredictable and had to be dealt with on the spot. Other factors, such as co-researchers’ personality, were more predictable and, therefore, methods could already be adapted to this.

You can clearly notice your own influence on the group. Having been so busy lately, I felt like chilling with them and not stressing much about time (or people not paying attention). Today I enjoyed that (instead of the strict time management and progress) = > outcome: they enjoyed themselves a lot and were outgoing BUT their input was of lower quality than last week. – Healthy Sleep Project

To a certain extent, facilitators tried to neutralize the effect of hindering factors. If facilitators were, for example, in a hurry and felt stressed, it helped to take 10 min before the session to relax. If that did not work and an extra facilitator was present, the second facilitator was given more responsibility. If co-researchers were distracted, it helped to let them share what was on their mind instead of urging them to immediately start working on the project. In this sense, the dynamics and energy of the group had to be considered constantly. Dealing with these varying circumstances required different facilitation skills and methods from the facilitators. For this, it helped to have taken facilitation courses or joined more experienced PAR researchers earlier on which enabled learning by doing.

Z. came in later today. He wanted to join the conversation right away, but he did not really know what we were talking about. I should have let the two other girls get him up to speed first. – Kids in Action

The dynamics in the group were also influenced by the composition of the group. The reflection forms indicated that when there were both dominant and shy co-researchers in one group, the moderating role of the facilitator became more important. With younger co-researchers, more pedagogical and facilitation skills were needed, as they could be more energetic and lost their focus more quickly. When a co-researcher impeded the atmosphere or bullied others, skills to manage tough situations were needed, such as having a serious one-on-one conversation with that co-researcher.

The PAR process ran more smoothly when all co-researchers were on time and attended all sessions, as it was very distracting when co-researchers showed up late and missed out what had already been discussed. It was useful to decide on the frequency and time of sessions together with the co-researchers, as some preferred to have sessions in the morning (but others were still half-asleep then), while others preferred the late afternoon (but others were half-asleep by then).

I could direct them to attend weekly. Additionally, the kids attending every week are much more involved and their tasks are more evident. For the ones only in occasional attendance, I think the work is less fulfilling since they don't have a clear understanding of what their purpose is. —Kids in Action

The main lessons that can be concluded within this theme are: (1) the facilitator’s mood and energy is reflected in the co-researchers, (2) a facilitator needs a diverse skillset (e.g. to adequately handle different personalities within the group), and (3) to decide on a meeting time and frequency together with the co-researchers.

This study aimed to illustrate how a facilitator can contribute to a successful PAR process based on a standardized reflection form from three PAR projects with children and adolescents. Several lessons learned that are likely also valuable for PAR with adult co-researchers. The added value of our study over existing more general guidelines [ 5 ] is that our findings result from in-depth qualitative analysis of a standardized reflection form used in three separate projects. Our reflection form proved to be a valuable tool for uncovering detailed examples and specific recommendations for the PAR process and our role as facilitator, enabling facilitators to improve their facilitation during the participatory process. These findings provide researchers who want to conduct PAR with a more practical summary of best practices for facilitators and detailed examples. The insights provided regarding ethics, methods and evaluation may be informative for future PAR projects and researchers wanting to develop or further elaborate on a co-creation methodology.

Successful sessions need considerable preparation. Facilitators need to maintain a safe, positive and functional atmosphere during sessions which can be influenced by the mood of both the facilitator and co-researchers. These findings confirm previous research [ 22 , 23 , 24 ].

Engaging with co-researchers on a personal level and ensuring a good connection with the group seemed important, confirming findings by facilitators from other PAR projects [ 25 ]. This contributed to a trustworthy relationship where all co-researchers felt they could speak their mind and be themselves, which in turn positively influenced the sense of ownership and control over the process, which are core principles of PAR [ 5 ]. Co-researchers took a more leading role in the sessions when they felt more ownership. These observations correspond with the Theoretical Framework of Symbolic Interactionism, which suggests that individuals’ engagement is based on their personal meaning in life, which is shaped by their interactions with others [ 26 ]. However, facilitators should be aware that closer relationships with co-researchers also bring greater potential for exploitation [ 27 ]. Since participation is often voluntary, it is critical that decisions are made together with the co-researchers, for example, about the aim of the study, their preferred role and how much time they want to invest.

Above all, our findings show that a flexible attitude from the facilitator in being goal oriented, being able to build strong relationships with co-researchers and having strong facilitation skills are essential for a successful PAR process. Especially finding a balance between moderating the conversation and letting co-researchers steer the conversation (in sometimes directions unrelated to the research topic) is a common challenge for PAR facilitators [ 28 , 29 , 30 ]. Sharing power with adolescents might be challenging for facilitators, and the most recurrent criticism on Youth PAR is the risk that researchers keep too much control. This can result in tokenism and falsely claiming collaboration with adolescents [ 31 ]. An important responsibility lies with the facilitator and their integrity regarding this challenge: facilitators should be compassionate, courageous, honest, humble and righteous and have the ability to have moral insight about a situation to establish ethical relationships in participatory research [ 32 ]. As facilitators play an important role in the PAR process, critical reflection through journaling or group dialogues on their behaviour and thoughts during collaboration with co-researchers is recommended [ 33 ]. Continuous reflection throughout the PAR process will provide insights into the facilitators’ influence on the research process, the social dynamics with co-researchers and power differentials that arise [ 8 , 33 ]. As a helpful tool to guide this reflection, we provide the adapted reflection form in Additional File 3 .

Based on the results of this study, we adjusted the reflection form for future use (Additional File 3 ). As a functional atmosphere and suitable working methods emerged as important themes, we added the following questions to the reflection form: “Were all goals of the session reached? If not, why not? If yes, how were they reached?” and “How were the used participatory methods received and did they give the anticipated output?”. As reflecting on the influence of the facilitators’ mood and personal characteristics on the session was not part of the reflection form, we added the following question: “How did the mood and personal characteristics of the facilitator influence the session?”. Finally, as equal collaboration and shared decision-making must be pursued at all times during PAR [ 6 ], we added the following questions: “To what extent were co-researchers in the lead during the session? How did this become visible? How was this reached?”.

Some limitations of the study need to be acknowledged. This study was conceived after the data had been collected, and we did not know in advance that we would combine the reflection forms of the three projects during the PAR process. Therefore, not all situations were described elaborately or easily interpretable for others. Furthermore, as the grading system within the reflection form (−−, −, 0, +, ++) was not concretized, we interpreted this differently when filling out the forms and, therefore, could not include the grading in the current study. We changed the grading system to disagree, neutral and agree in the updated reflection form in Additional File 3 . Another limitation of our study is the potential bias introduced by facilitators analysing their own reflection forms, which was necessary to include contextual information and to prevent misinterpretation. Although we believe that our findings are of use to a wide spread of PAR researchers, researchers using our recommendations should take the context in which these originated (PAR with children and adolescents in West Europe) into account.

A strength of this study was that a large amount of data was collected over long time periods (3–4 years for each of the projects). Another strength is that the three PAR projects that used the reflection forms worked with co-researchers from different age groups, social backgrounds and educational levels. This led to insights that can be used for a wider range of PAR projects. A third and final strength of this study is that real-world data were analysed on the basis of already identified principles of facilitating PAR processes, linking available core principles of facilitating PAR processes in literature to data.

In-depth qualitative analyses of a standardized reflection form used in three different PAR projects resulted in various lessons to support facilitators in collaborating with co-researchers in PAR projects: 1) when preparing PAR sessions, facilitators should plan for flexibility, include active and creative participatory methods, play with varying locations and set-ups and let co-researchers influence the pace and clearly state the goal at the beginning of the sessions; 2) to ensure a safe, positive and functional atmosphere, make good agreements on how to work together and make sure everyone is heard as well as take time to have fun and get to know each other; 3) to ensure ownership and shared decision-making, facilitators need to encourage co-researchers to take the lead and be transparent about additional meetings that facilitators or involved researchers have without the co-researchers; 4) to handle influencing factors such as the mood of co-researchers, a facilitator needs a diverse skillset.

Availability of data and materials

The reflection form and final codebook are shared in the study and Additional file. The filled in reflection forms cannot be shared because individual privacy could be compromised.

Abbreviations

Participatory Action Research

Socio-Economic Status

Baum F, MacDougall C, Smith D. Participatory action research. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2006;60(10):854.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Kornet-van der Aa D, Altenburg T, van Randeraad-van der Zee C, Chinapaw M. The effectiveness and promising strategies of obesity prevention and treatment programmes among adolescents from disadvantaged backgrounds: a systematic review. Obes Rev. 2017;18(5):581–93.

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Bozlak CT, Kelley MA. Participatory action research with youth. In: Participatory action research. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2014. p. 67.

Google Scholar  

Kim J. Youth involvement in participatory action research (PAR). Crit Soc Work. 2016. https://doi.org/10.22329/csw.v17i1.5891 .

Article   Google Scholar  

Wright M. International Collaboration for Participatory Health Research (ICPHR) (2013) position paper 1: what is participatory health research? Version: Mai 2013. Berlin: International Collaboration for Participatory Health Research; 2013.

Wright MT, Springett J, Kongats K. What is participatory health research? In: Wright MT, Kongats K, editors. Participatory health research: voices from around the world. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2018. p. 3–15.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Watt D. On becoming a qualitative researcher: the value of reflexivity. Qual Rep. 2007;12(1):82–101.

Green J, Thorogood N. Qualitative methods for health research. London: Sage; 2018.

Dewar B, Sharp C. Appreciative dialogue for co-facilitation in action research and practice development. Int Pract Dev J. 2013;3(2). https://www.fons.org/library/journal/volume3-issue2/article7/

Boyden J, Ennew J, editors. Children in focus—a manual for participatory research with children. Save the Children Sweden; 1997.

Anselma M, Altenburg T, Chinapaw M. Kids in action: the protocol of a youth participatory action research project to promote physical activity and dietary behaviour. BMJ Open. 2019;9(3): e025584.

Anselma M, Altenburg TM, Emke H, van Nassau F, Jurg M, Ruiter RAC, et al. Co-designing obesity prevention interventions together with children: intervention mapping meets youth-led participatory action research. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2019;16(1):130.

Vandendriessche A, Deforche B, Dhondt K, Altenburg TM, Verloigne M. Combining participatory action research with intervention mapping to develop and plan the implementation and evaluation of a healthy sleep intervention for adolescents. Health Promot Perspect. 2023;13(4):316.

Waterlander WE, Luna Pinzon A, Verhoeff A, Den Hertog K, Altenburg T, Dijkstra C, et al. A system dynamics and participatory action research approach to promote healthy living and a healthy weight among 10–14-year-old adolescents in Amsterdam: the LIKE programme. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(14):4928.

Clarke V, Braun V. Thematic analysis. J Posit Psychol. 2017;12(3):297–8.

Abma T, Lips S, Schrijver J. Sowing seeds to harvest healthier adults: the working principles and impact of participatory health research with children in a primary school context. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(2):451.

Ansell N, Robson E, Hajdu F, van Blerk L. Learning from young people about their lives: using participatory methods to research the impacts of AIDS in southern Africa. Children’s Geogr. 2012;10(2):169–86.

Haarmans H. 2018-01, editor: Facilitations Academy. 2018.

Jurrius K. Uit de spagaat! Naar een kwaliteitsraamwerk voor Participatief Jongeren Onderzoek. Utrecht University; 2013.

Ozer EJ. Youth-led participatory action research: developmental and equity perspectives. Adv Child Dev Behav. 2016;50:189–207.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Shamrova DP, Cummings CE. Participatory action research (PAR) with children and youth: an integrative review of methodology and PAR outcomes for participants, organizations, and communities. Child Youth Serv Rev. 2017;81:400–12.

Vandael K, Dewaele A, Buysse A, Westerduin S. Guide to co-creation. Ghent: Ghent University & Ministry of Makers; 2018.

Ozer EJ, Ritterman ML, Wanis MG. Participatory action research (PAR) in middle school: opportunities, constraints, and key processes. Am J Community Psychol. 2010;46(1–2):152–66.

Horgan D. Child participatory research methods: attempts to go ‘deeper.’ Childhood. 2016;24:245–59.

Schiller U, Jaffray P, Ridley T, Du Plessis C. Facilitating a participatory action learning action research process in a higher educational context. Action Res. 2021;19(2):301–17.

Blumer H. Symbolic interactionism: perspective and method. Berkeley: Univ of California Press; 1986.

Dodson L, Piatelli D, Schmalzbauer L. Researching inequality through interpretive collaborations: shifting power and the unspoken contract. Qual Inq. 2007;13(6):821–43.

Wilson N, Dasho S, Martin AC, Wallerstein N, Wang CC, Minkler M. Engaging young adolescents in social action through photovoice: the youth empowerment strategies (YES!) project. J Early Adolesc. 2007;27(2):241–61.

Flicker S, Maley O, Ridgley A, Biscope S, Lombardo C, Skinner HA. e-PAR: using technology and participatory action research to engage youth in health promotion. Action Res. 2008;6(3):285–303.

Anderson AJ. A qualitative systematic review of youth participatory action research implementation in US high schools. Am J Community Psychol. 2020;65(1–2):242–57.

Fox R. Resisting participation: critiquing participatory research methodologies with young people. J Youth Stud. 2013;16(8):986–99.

Schaffer MA. A virtue ethics guide to best practices for community-based participatory research. Progr Community Health Partnersh Res Educ Action. 2009;3(1):83–90.

Malorni A, Lea CH III, Richards-Schuster K, Spencer MS. Facilitating youth participatory action research (YPAR): a scoping review of relational practice in US youth development & out-of-school time projects. Child Youth Serv Rev. 2022;136: 106399.

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors want to thank all participating children/adolescents, schools and community partners for their effort and contributions to these participatory studies.

This study is part of the Kids in Action study, which was funded by FNO (Grant Number 101569). The Medical Ethics Committee of the VUmc (2016.366) approved the study. The healthy sleep project was funded by the Special Research Fund- Doctoral Scholarship Ghent University (BOF DOC2018003201). The Medical Ethics Committee of the Ghent University approved the study protocol (B670201630466). The LIKE study was supported by a grant from the Netherlands Cardiovascular Research Initiative: An initiative with support of the Dutch Heart Foundation, ZonMw, CVON2016-07 LIKE. The Medical Ethical Committee of the VU University Medical Centre approved the study protocol (2018.234).

Author information

Helga Emke and Ann Vandendriessche share first authorship as they contributed equally to this work.

Authors and Affiliations

Department of Health Sciences, Faculty of Science, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium

Ann Vandendriessche, Benedicte Deforche & Maïté Verloigne

Department of Public and Occupational Health, Amsterdam University Medical Centre, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

Helga Emke, Mai Chinapaw, Teatske Altenburg & Manou Anselma

Movement and Nutrition for Health and Performance Research Group, Faculty of Physical Education and Physical Therapy, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels, Belgium

Benedicte Deforche

Mulier Instituut, Utrecht, The Netherlands

Manou Anselma

Health Behaviour and Chronic Diseases and Methodology, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands

Helga Emke, Mai Chinapaw & Teatske Altenburg

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

The study was designed by H.E., A.V. and M.A. M.C., B.D., M.V. and T.A. provided support on the design of the paper. The paper was drafted by H.E., A.V. and M.A., with all authors providing feedback to drafts. All authors approved the final version.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Helga Emke .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

A written active informed consent to participate in the participatory process was obtained from at least one of the parents or guardians in all three projects and in the LIKE and Healthy Sleep project also from the co-researchers themselves.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

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

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1, additional file 2, additional file 3, rights and permissions.

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

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Emke, H., Vandendriessche, A., Chinapaw, M. et al. Facilitating co-research: lessons learned from reflection forms within three participatory action research projects. Health Res Policy Sys 22 , 117 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-024-01210-x

Download citation

Received : 19 October 2023

Accepted : 03 August 2024

Published : 23 August 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-024-01210-x

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

• Facilitation
• Co-research
• Participatory action research

Health Research Policy and Systems

ISSN: 1478-4505

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

An official website of the United States government.

Here’s how you know

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

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

• American Job Centers
• Apprenticeship
• Demonstration Grants
• Farmworkers
• Federal Bonding Program
• Foreign Labor Certification
• Indians and Native Americans
• Job Seekers
• Layoffs and Rapid Response
• National Dislocated Worker Grants
• Older Workers
• Skills Training Grants
• Trade Adjustment Assistance
• Unemployment Insurance
• Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA)
• WIOA Adult Program
• Advisories and Directives
• Regulations
• Labor Surplus Area
• Performance
• Recovery-Ready Workplace Resource Hub
• Research and Evaluation
• ETA News Releases
• Updates for Workforce Professionals
• Regional Offices
• Freedom of Information Act
• Office of Apprenticeship
• Office of Foreign Labor Certification
• Office of Grants Management
• Office of Job Corps
• Office of Unemployment Insurance (1-877-S-2JOBS)

Equity in Grant-Making: A Review of Barriers and Strategies for Funders Considering Improvement Opportunities

Publication info, research methodology, description.

In 2023 the Chief Evaluation Office partnered with the Employment and Training Administration (ETA) to fund a study focused on exploring approaches to measure and increase equity in ETA’s discretionary grant-making programs. This study sought to explore how grant-makers – such as Federal agencies, State and local government agencies, and philanthropic organizations – define, assess, and increase equity in their grant-making process.

This study explores research and strategies related to equity in the discretionary grant-making process based on a review of publicly available literature and Federal agency Equity Action Plans as well as interviews with Federal and philanthropic grant-makers. The report describes how funders define equity in the context of awarding grants, common barriers and promising action steps to increase equity in each stage of the grant-making process (pre-award, collection of applications, funding of awards, and post-award), and measurement strategies to help funders track their progress.

This report can support a variety of grant-makers examining equity, whether at government agencies (including at Federal, State, and local levels) or foundations. Recognizing that grant-making organizations vary in size, policy area, and scope, the study team provides findings and suggestions that funders can tailor to meet their context and goals. The findings focus on domestic (U.S.-based) grant-making, though international or transnational grant-makers may also find useful insights.

Key takeaways include:

• When selecting strategies to increase equity, grant-makers may invest time and resources to communicate the new approach to potential applicants and build trust, particularly with organizations and groups that provide services to underrepresented communities. For example, reviewed resources encourage funders to expand the networks they use to announce new funding opportunities and participate in community events. These trust-building activities may encourage new organizations to apply for grant programs and create space to provide feedback on challenging or inequitable aspects of the grant-making process. 
• Study interviewees also emphasized the value of continued internal communications with funding staff to build organizational motivation to implement and refine equity initiatives. Communication efforts include describing goals and progress, holding training sessions to increase awareness of action steps, and sharing tools to streamline implementation and affect change. 
• By implementing strategies to increase equity in grant-making, funders take a critical step toward addressing systemic inequities in the type of organizations, individuals, and communities that receive grant funding.   

After Action Review: What is it and How to Use it to Improve Team Performance

What is an After Action Review?

An After Action Review (AAR) is a tool designed to help teams assess their performance after completing a task, event, activity, or project. The primary purpose of an AAR is to facilitate a candid and constructive discussion among team members to uncover what was successfully executed, identify areas for improvement, and generate actionable insights for future endeavors. Unlike traditional performance evaluations, AARs focus on collective learning, fostering a culture of continuous improvement and adaptive learning within organizations. It is also a tool that can be used as a catalyst for cultural change .

How the After Action Review Originated

In the 1970s, the US Army created after action reviews to improve organizational learning and performance. Initially developed as a means to systematically learn from both military successes and failures, AARs provided a structured forum for soldiers to analyze missions immediately after their occurrence. This process emphasized an honest and transparent discussion about what worked, what didn’t, and why. Over time, AARs became a fundamental aspect of military training and operations, fostering a culture of continuous improvement and adaptive learning.

The success of AARs in the military context persuaded corporates to gradually adopt these into their operational processes to seek similar benefits in terms of performance improvement and learning from experience. Businesses began to use AARs to debrief after major projects, product launches, and strategic initiatives. Non-profits also saw the value in applying the AAR methodology to reflect on missions, campaigns, and community programs.

The Four Phases of an After Action Review

The first key part of an after action review (AAR) is the design phase. This stage involves outlining the objectives, setting the scope, and determining the key focus areas of the review. The goal is to ensure that the review is structured in a way that captures all critical elements of the activity or event being analyzed. During the design phase, it’s essential to identify the questions that will guide the review, such as:

What was supposed to happen?

What actually happened?

By thoughtfully designing your AAR, you can lay the groundwork for meaningful insights and ensure that the process addresses specific performance aspects comprehensively.

The preparation phase is crucial for the success of an AAR. This involves gathering all relevant data and resources that will be needed for the review, such as performance metrics, feedback from participants, and other documentation. It’s also important to select a neutral, skilled facilitator who can guide the conversation and ensure a balanced, open discussion. Additionally, ensuring that all team members understand the purpose and process of the AAR and are prepared to participate candidly is vital. This phase sets the stage for a productive review by making sure that all necessary information is at hand and all participants are ready to engage constructively.

The implementation phase is where the actual review takes place. This stage involves bringing the team together to discuss the key questions identified during the design phase. A typical AAR will cover questions such as:

What were the differences between what was planned and what actually occurred?

What worked and what didn’t work, and why?

It’s important to foster an environment of openness and trust, wherein participants feel comfortable sharing their honest perspectives. Real-time collaboration and visualization tools, such as Creately, can be extremely beneficial during this phase to map out strategies, visualize data, and streamline the discussion. Implementing a well-structured AAR can lead directly to actionable insights and improvements.

Disseminate

The final part of an after action review is the dissemination of findings and insights. This phase involves documenting the outcomes of the review and sharing them with relevant stakeholders within the organization. Detailed reports, often based on feedback collected throughout the AAR, should include specific recommendations for future actions and improvements. Utilizing platforms for organizational learning, such as intranets or knowledge bases, can help in making these insights accessible to all team members. Proper dissemination ensures that the lessons learned from the AAR are not just documented but also acted upon, leading to continuous improvement and higher performance in future projects.

Benefits of Conducting an After Action Review

Conducting an after action review (AAR) provides numerous benefits that significantly enhance team performance and foster a culture of continuous improvement within an organization.

Promotes Continuous Learning

After action reviews are instrumental in creating a learning environment where team members can reflect on their actions and decisions. This process turns unconscious learning into explicit knowledge, helping teams understand what they did well and where improvements are needed. By regularly engaging in AARs, organizations can cultivate a culture of transparent communication and adaptive learning.

Identifying Successes and Areas for Improvement

A key benefit of AARs is their role in pinpointing both successes and areas needing improvement. By discussing questions such as “What was supposed to happen?” , “What actually happened?” , and “What would you do differently next time?” , teams can identify the factors that led to success and those that hindered performance. This practice not only highlights effective strategies but also uncovers pitfalls to avoid in future projects.

Actionable insights for future projects

Increased team cohesion and trust

Empowerment of team members through participation

Examples of Tangible Improvements Driven by AAR Insights

Numerous organizations have demonstrated the tangible benefits of AARs. For instance, J. M. Huber Corporation uses AARs to evaluate both planned and unplanned projects, sharing insights through a centralized database. Similarly, Microsoft conducts AARs at the end of every project, ensuring broad participation and sharing findings via their intranet. These examples show how AARs can lead to significant improvements in processes, strategies, and overall team performance.

• Ready to use
• Fully customizable template
• Get Started in seconds

Steps to Conduct an Effective After Action Review

Conducting an effective after action review (AAR) requires a structured approach to ensure comprehensive insights and actionable feedback. Here are the key steps to plan and execute a successful AAR:

Planning an After Action Review

The foundation of a successful AAR lies in thorough planning. This includes:

Define Objectives: Clearly outline the goals of the AAR, such as identifying successes, areas for improvement, and lessons learned.

Select Participants: Choose team members who were directly involved in the project, as well as stakeholders who can provide valuable perspectives.

Schedule the AAR: Conduct the review as soon as possible after the event to ensure memories are fresh. Immediate feedback is crucial for accuracy and relevance.

Prepare Materials: Gather all relevant data, including project plans, performance metrics, and feedback from stakeholders. Use tools like Creately to visualize data and facilitate discussion.

Executing an After Action Review

Execution involves facilitating the actual review session. This step is critical for extracting valuable insights:

Set the Stage: Create a safe and open environment where participants feel comfortable sharing honest feedback. Emphasize the focus on improvement, not blame.

Ask Key Questions: Structure the discussion around core questions: What was supposed to happen? What actually happened? What were the differences? What worked well? What didn’t work? Why?

Document the Discussion: Assign a note-taker to capture key points and actionable recommendations. Using tools like Creately can help in documenting and visualizing these insights in real-time.

Sample Questions

Asking the right questions is fundamental to gaining valuable insights. Here are sample questions to guide your AAR:

What Happened Questions: What were our initial goals and objectives? What was our strategy? What changes were made?

What Worked Questions: What strategies were successful? Which processes facilitated smooth execution?

What About Next Time Questions: What improvements can be made? What should we do differently in future projects?

Best Practices for Facilitation of an After Action Review

Effective facilitation is key to a productive AAR. Here are best practices to consider:

Encourage Participation: Ensure that all team members have the opportunity to share their insights. Diverse perspectives enrich the learning process.

Use Visual Aids: Utilize visual tools and platforms like Creately to map out discussions, connect feedback, and identify patterns. This enhances understanding and retention of key points.

Focus on Actionable Insights: Aim to generate specific, actionable recommendations that can be implemented in future projects.

Follow-Up: Disseminate the findings of the AAR to all relevant parties and ensure that agreed-upon actions are tracked and executed.

Applications of After Action Reviews in Various Domains

Corporate sector.

After Action Reviews (AARs) have become an essential component of corporate strategy, helping businesses identify both successes and areas for improvement. For instance, tech giants like Microsoft leverage AARs to analyze project outcomes and enhance team performance. By conducting AARs regularly and sharing insights via their intranet, companies can transform unconscious learning into tangible practices that drive operational excellence.

Healthcare Sector

The healthcare sector immensely benefits from AARs, primarily in improving patient care and organizational efficiency. Hospitals and healthcare systems conduct AARs after critical incidents to understand what happened, what went well, and what needs improvement. This real-time analysis fosters a culture of continuous learning and preparedness, which is vital for dealing with future healthcare challenges. Institutions also use tools like Creately to visually map patient care processes and enhance teamwork through collaborative reviews.

Non-Profit Sector

In the non-profit domain, AARs are employed to evaluate project outcomes and improve future interventions. For example, during disaster response activities, organizations conduct joint AARs to learn from collective experiences, as seen in the aftermath of the 2004 tsunami crisis. This collaborative approach not only enhances performance but also builds stronger community linkages and long-term planning strategies.

Common Challenges in Conducting After Action Reviews

Typical challenges.

Conducting an After Action Review (AAR) is not always straightforward. Teams often face several challenges, such as lack of participation, ineffective communication, and insufficient follow-through on action items. Confidentiality concerns may also hamper open discussions, while the absence of a skilled facilitator can result in unfocused or unproductive sessions. Furthermore, AARs might become pro forma exercises if team members do not see their practical value.

Strategies to Overcome Challenges

To mitigate these obstacles, it is crucial to create an environment of trust and openness where team members feel safe to share honest feedback. Appointing an experienced and impartial facilitator can help guide the conversation and ensure it remains goal-oriented. Encourage active participation by setting clear expectations and emphasizing the importance of each member’s input. Utilizing tools like flipchart sheets for visualization and having a note-taker to document insights can enhance communication. Additionally, plan for immediate follow-up on action items to maintain momentum and demonstrate the AAR’s value.

Role of Leadership

Leadership plays a pivotal role in addressing challenges during AARs. Leaders should foster a culture of continuous learning and improvement by modeling transparency and selflessness. They must emphasize the benefits of conducting AARs, such as identifying areas for improvement and celebrating successes. Additionally, ensuring the confidentiality of discussions can build trust among team members, encouraging more candid conversations. By consistently supporting and participating in AARs, leaders can signal their commitment to the process and drive its effectiveness.

Case Studies for After Action Reviews

Case study 1: corporate sector.

XYZ Corporation, a leading manufacturing company, implemented After Action Reviews (AARs) to assess and improve their project management processes. By consistently conducting AARs at the end of each project, they identified inefficiencies and refined their workflows. This resulted in a 20% increase in project completion rates and improved client satisfaction scores.

Case Study 2: Healthcare Sector

ABC Healthcare leveraged AARs to optimize their emergency response protocols. During the evaluation of a mock disaster drill, they pinpointed communication gaps and resource allocation issues. Post-AAR, they implemented advanced training programs and protocol adjustments, significantly enhancing their readiness for real emergencies. Their comprehensive AARs have also played a vital role in reducing patient response times by 15%.

Case Study 3: Non-Profit Sector

The Global Aid Organization used AARs to assess their international disaster relief efforts. Following their experience in responding to a major natural disaster, they identified key areas for improvement, such as early social and economic analysis and community consultation. Their commitment to AARs facilitated better preparedness and coordination, enabling them to deliver aid more effectively during future crises.

It’s evident that successful implementation of AARs can drive significant improvements across various sectors. By fostering a culture of continuous learning and utilizing tools that support real-time collaboration and visualization, such as Creately, organizations can maximize the benefits of AARs and achieve remarkable results.

How to Write a Good After Action Review Report

Analyzing feedback collected during aars.

Effective analysis of feedback collected during After Action Reviews (AARs) is crucial for deriving actionable insights. Start by categorizing feedback into themes such as successes, challenges, and areas for improvement. This helps in identifying patterns and understanding the broader implications of the feedback. Use tools like Creately’s collaborative platform to visually map out these themes and facilitate discussions on key takeaways.

Structuring an AAR Report

A well-structured AAR report is essential for clear communication and follow-through on recommendations. Here’s a basic structure to follow:

Introduction: Brief overview of the project or event reviewed.

Objective: The goals and objectives set for the AAR.

Methodology: Explain the process used to collect data and feedback.

Findings: Detailed accounts of what happened, categorized by themes such as successes and challenges.

Recommendations: Specific, actionable suggestions for improvement.

Conclusion: Summarize the key lessons learned and next steps.

Recommendations for Ensuring Actionable Insights in the Report

To ensure your AAR report is not only informative but also actionable, follow these best practices:

Be Specific: Avoid vague statements and focus on clear, actionable recommendations.

Prioritize Issues: Highlight the most critical issues and address them first.

Facilitate Follow-Up: Assign responsibility for implementing recommendations to specific team members.

Leverage Tools: Utilize tools like Creately to visually represent data and track progress on recommendations. This makes it easier for teams to understand and act on the insights provided.

After Action Reviews (AARs) are a vital tool for any organization dedicated to continuous improvement and learning. By systematically analyzing what worked, what didn’t, and how to make future efforts more effective, teams can quickly adapt and evolve. This structured method promotes transparency, learning from both successes and failures, and sets a benchmark for performance.

For organizations aiming to foster a culture of growth and constant innovation, adopting AARs is non-negotiable. Regularly conducting AARs helps teams develop a habit of reflection and adaptiveness. This can be particularly beneficial in dynamic fields where rapid changes are the norm. Including all team members ensures diverse perspectives are considered, making the learning process more holistic and impactful.

Leveraging tools such as Creately can significantly enhance the effectiveness of AARs. With Creately’s real-time data integration, visual strategy mapping, and feedback collation features, teams can conduct highly interactive and inclusive reviews. Visual tools simplify the process of documenting insights and strategies, making it easier to share lessons learned across the organization. If you’re looking to transform your team’s efficiency, integrating Creately into your AAR process is a step in the right direction.

Join over thousands of organizations that use Creately to brainstorm, plan, analyze, and execute their projects successfully.

FAQs on the After Action Review

What is the concept of after action review, what is another word for after-action review.

Several terms can be used interchangeably with After Action Review (AAR):

After Action Debrief

Post-mortem

Lessons Learned Review

Hot Wash (often used in military or emergency response contexts)

Retrospective

A Retrospect is an enhanced version of an after-action review. It involves a more detailed set of questions to evaluate a project or task:

Goals: What were your initial objectives?

Strategy: How did you plan to achieve these goals?

Adaptations: How did your plan evolve during the project?

Successes: What went well and why?

Improvements: What areas could have been better?

Self-advice: What would you tell yourself at the project’s start?

Key takeaways: What are the main lessons to share with others?

Future steps: What’s next for this project?

Project narrative: Can you summarize your experience with a story?

Long-term learning: What should we remember about this project a year from now?

Personal growth: What did you learn individually from this experience?

This format helps teams and individuals thoroughly analyze their work, identify lessons, and plan for future improvements.

Essentially, these terms all refer to a process of reviewing past events to gain insights and improve future outcomes.

More Related Articles

Hansani has a background in journalism and marketing communications. She loves reading and writing about tech innovations. She enjoys writing poetry, travelling and photography.