A literature review is a critical account of research relevant to a defined question. For a dissertation, you set the scope, search for sources, assess their relevance and compare what they show. The written review explains how the evidence fits together and how your own project relates to it, with references that let readers trace each claim.
If you have a folder full of papers but no clear chapter, start by asking what you need the literature to explain. The process below takes you from a research question to a search log, an evidence matrix and a paragraph that brings sources together.
What is a literature review supposed to do?
A review explains how researchers have approached a problem, where their findings agree and where differences remain. The University of Manchester advises writers to evaluate the relevant studies as well as organise them, including the methods used and the support for their conclusions. University of Manchester guidance
As you read, ask: How are the main concepts defined? What has been established? Are the studies comparable? What can your dissertation reasonably investigate next?
Begin this work while choosing your dissertation topic. Return to the literature as your question develops and when you need to interpret your own findings.
How to conduct a literature review
1. Define a question and a workable scope
“Student learning” is too broad for a useful search. For a worked example, consider: “How does retrieval practice relate to later retention among university students?”
Identify the population, the activity and the outcome. Note what you will exclude, such as research on young children if it falls outside your question. Treat the initial boundaries as provisional and refine them after some exploratory reading. Our guide to hypotheses and research questions explains how these differ.
2. Build a search vocabulary
Break the question into concepts. Add synonyms used in the field rather than searching only for the proposed dissertation title.
| Concept | Terms to try |
|---|---|
| Population | university students, undergraduates |
| Learning activity | retrieval practice, practice testing, testing effect |
| Outcome | retention, long-term retention |
For an exploratory Google Scholar search, try "retrieval practice" "university students". In a database supporting the relevant syntax, you might use (retrieval practice OR practice testing) AND undergraduate*. Check the database help before relying on Boolean operators, truncation or field searches; implementations differ.
3. Choose suitable search tools and record your searches
Start with Google Scholar and the resources available through your university library. Choose subject databases to fit the question: for example, investigate ERIC for education research or PubMed for a health-related topic. Check institutional access to Scopus or Web of Science if relevant.
Google Scholar's official help explains author and title searches, date filters and access to alternative versions. Follow references in useful papers and inspect later work that cites them.
Keep a search log with the database, date, exact query and filters. Record changes rather than overwriting the earlier search. This makes it easier to revisit the process and explain how you selected your material.
4. Assess relevance and read critically
Screen titles and abstracts first. For papers you plan to discuss in detail, read the full text, especially the methods, findings and limitations. An abstract is usually insufficient for judging the study in depth.
Check whether the paper answers your question, who took part and how the authors measured the outcome. Ask whether the conclusions follow from the results. Look for later research that supports, qualifies or challenges the account.
Use citation counts as context. They do not remove the need to assess a study. An older foundational paper may still be relevant, but you should understand subsequent developments. Follow any source requirements in your department's handbook.
5. Create a literature review matrix
Use the same fields for each source so you can compare studies without repeatedly opening every document.
| Field | What to record |
|---|---|
| Author, year, title, DOI or URL | Enough information to find the source again |
| Question and aim | What the study investigated |
| Participants, setting and method | Where the evidence came from |
| Main finding | A short note in your own words |
| Limitations | Boundaries on the interpretation |
| Relevance to your dissertation | The question or section the source informs |
| Page or section | Where to locate a specific claim |
| Reading status | Abstract only, full text read or text still needed |
Download the blank literature review matrix as a CSV. It can be opened in Excel or another spreadsheet editor. Check access and sharing permissions before adding full-text files to a shared folder.
You can manage bibliographic records in Zotero. Its official guide explains collecting, organising and citing sources. Compare imported metadata with the original document before using it.
6. Organise themes and write a synthesis
Build the chapter around questions or themes. In this example, you might examine the delay before assessment and the learning activities being compared.
Start a paragraph with a specific point. Bring relevant sources into the discussion, compare what they contribute and explain what follows. When findings differ, examine the populations, measures and conditions before describing them as contradictory. Keep the source of each claim clear.
Worked example: turning notes into a paragraph
The example below uses the records and abstracts of two real studies. It demonstrates a writing process; it is not a complete or current review of the research area.
| Source | Note from the abstract |
|---|---|
| Roediger and Karpicke, 2006 | Previous testing outperformed repeated study on delayed retention tests. |
| Karpicke and Blunt, 2011 | Retrieval practice outperformed concept mapping on measures including comprehension. |
A short model paragraph might read:
The selected studies support retrieval practice as a learning activity. Roediger and Karpicke (2006) examined later retention, while Karpicke and Blunt (2011) extended the comparison to concept mapping and comprehension. Applying these findings to a particular course requires checking the similarity of the materials and learning conditions.
The paragraph connects the papers while keeping their contributions distinct. Read the full studies before making more detailed claims, add recent research and format the citations using the style your department requires.
Where does the literature review go in a dissertation?
The structure depends on the discipline, assignment and departmental guidance. A review may be a standalone chapter or integrated into other chapters. In a review-based dissertation, the search and selection process may also need a methods section.
A working outline could cover the problem and concepts, themes in the evidence, comparison of findings and methods, and the relationship to your own project. Compare this with our guide to dissertation structure and your supervisor's requirements. Do not assume a universal chapter length or percentage.
Literature review or systematic review?
A systematic review requires an explicitly justified and transparent process for searching, selecting and appraising research. Searching several databases does not by itself make a dissertation chapter systematic.
PRISMA provides reporting guidance for systematic reviews. Completing its flow diagram does not replace a research method. Agree the review design and any reporting framework with your supervisor.
Referencing and common mistakes
Attach a source to each note as you write it. Mark direct quotations clearly and keep them separate from your own interpretation. A paraphrase still needs an attribution, and it must preserve the original meaning. Follow the referencing style required by your department, such as Harvard or APA. See our guides to online source referencing and quotation and paraphrase.
Before submitting, check for a chapter that simply lists authors, conclusions extended beyond the participants studied, selection of only supporting evidence, or references presented as primary reading when you encountered them in another paper.
AI can help suggest search terms. Verify references and claims against the original sources, and follow your university's rules on permitted use and acknowledgement. A plausible reference is not evidence that a publication exists.
Frequently asked questions
How many sources should a literature review contain?
Follow your assignment brief and departmental handbook. Where no minimum is specified, justify the selection through relevance, quality and coverage. A source count alone does not show whether the review addresses the important evidence and disagreements.
Is a literature review the same as a reference list?
No. The review searches, selects and discusses the evidence. A reference list gives the bibliographic information for cited works. The comparison and interpretation belong in the dissertation text.
Can I include older research?
Yes, if it is relevant, such as the original statement of a theory or a foundational study. Check later developments and follow any department-specific rules about source age.
Is Google Scholar enough for a dissertation literature review?
It is a useful starting point. Depending on the discipline and review design, add subject databases and library resources. For a systematic review, justify search sources through the method you have agreed.
When should I start writing the review?
Start once you have a defined question, have read relevant texts and can organise notes into themes. Searching and writing can overlap. Keep a record of gaps that need further reading.
Methodological sources and example studies
- University of Manchester: discussing sources and literature.
- Google Scholar: official search help.
- Zotero: getting started.
- PRISMA: systematic review reporting.
- Roediger and Karpicke, 2006: study record and abstract. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01693.x.
- Karpicke and Blunt, 2011: study record and abstract. DOI: 10.1126/science.1199327.