what do literature reviews do

Purdue Online Writing Lab Purdue OWL® College of Liberal Arts

Writing a Literature Review

Welcome to the Purdue OWL

This page is brought to you by the OWL at Purdue University. When printing this page, you must include the entire legal notice.

Copyright ©1995-2018 by The Writing Lab & The OWL at Purdue and Purdue University. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, reproduced, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed without permission. Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our terms and conditions of fair use.

A literature review is a document or section of a document that collects key sources on a topic and discusses those sources in conversation with each other (also called synthesis ). The lit review is an important genre in many disciplines, not just literature (i.e., the study of works of literature such as novels and plays). When we say “literature review” or refer to “the literature,” we are talking about the research ( scholarship ) in a given field. You will often see the terms “the research,” “the scholarship,” and “the literature” used mostly interchangeably.

Where, when, and why would I write a lit review?

There are a number of different situations where you might write a literature review, each with slightly different expectations; different disciplines, too, have field-specific expectations for what a literature review is and does. For instance, in the humanities, authors might include more overt argumentation and interpretation of source material in their literature reviews, whereas in the sciences, authors are more likely to report study designs and results in their literature reviews; these differences reflect these disciplines’ purposes and conventions in scholarship. You should always look at examples from your own discipline and talk to professors or mentors in your field to be sure you understand your discipline’s conventions, for literature reviews as well as for any other genre.

A literature review can be a part of a research paper or scholarly article, usually falling after the introduction and before the research methods sections. In these cases, the lit review just needs to cover scholarship that is important to the issue you are writing about; sometimes it will also cover key sources that informed your research methodology.

Lit reviews can also be standalone pieces, either as assignments in a class or as publications. In a class, a lit review may be assigned to help students familiarize themselves with a topic and with scholarship in their field, get an idea of the other researchers working on the topic they’re interested in, find gaps in existing research in order to propose new projects, and/or develop a theoretical framework and methodology for later research. As a publication, a lit review usually is meant to help make other scholars’ lives easier by collecting and summarizing, synthesizing, and analyzing existing research on a topic. This can be especially helpful for students or scholars getting into a new research area, or for directing an entire community of scholars toward questions that have not yet been answered.

What are the parts of a lit review?

Most lit reviews use a basic introduction-body-conclusion structure; if your lit review is part of a larger paper, the introduction and conclusion pieces may be just a few sentences while you focus most of your attention on the body. If your lit review is a standalone piece, the introduction and conclusion take up more space and give you a place to discuss your goals, research methods, and conclusions separately from where you discuss the literature itself.

Introduction:

• An introductory paragraph that explains what your working topic and thesis is
• A forecast of key topics or texts that will appear in the review
• Potentially, a description of how you found sources and how you analyzed them for inclusion and discussion in the review (more often found in published, standalone literature reviews than in lit review sections in an article or research paper)
• Summarize and synthesize: Give an overview of the main points of each source and combine them into a coherent whole
• Analyze and interpret: Don’t just paraphrase other researchers – add your own interpretations where possible, discussing the significance of findings in relation to the literature as a whole
• Critically Evaluate: Mention the strengths and weaknesses of your sources
• Write in well-structured paragraphs: Use transition words and topic sentence to draw connections, comparisons, and contrasts.

Conclusion:

• Summarize the key findings you have taken from the literature and emphasize their significance
• Connect it back to your primary research question

How should I organize my lit review?

Lit reviews can take many different organizational patterns depending on what you are trying to accomplish with the review. Here are some examples:

• Chronological : The simplest approach is to trace the development of the topic over time, which helps familiarize the audience with the topic (for instance if you are introducing something that is not commonly known in your field). If you choose this strategy, be careful to avoid simply listing and summarizing sources in order. Try to analyze the patterns, turning points, and key debates that have shaped the direction of the field. Give your interpretation of how and why certain developments occurred (as mentioned previously, this may not be appropriate in your discipline — check with a teacher or mentor if you’re unsure).
• Thematic : If you have found some recurring central themes that you will continue working with throughout your piece, you can organize your literature review into subsections that address different aspects of the topic. For example, if you are reviewing literature about women and religion, key themes can include the role of women in churches and the religious attitude towards women.
• Qualitative versus quantitative research
• Empirical versus theoretical scholarship
• Divide the research by sociological, historical, or cultural sources
• Theoretical : In many humanities articles, the literature review is the foundation for the theoretical framework. You can use it to discuss various theories, models, and definitions of key concepts. You can argue for the relevance of a specific theoretical approach or combine various theorical concepts to create a framework for your research.

What are some strategies or tips I can use while writing my lit review?

Any lit review is only as good as the research it discusses; make sure your sources are well-chosen and your research is thorough. Don’t be afraid to do more research if you discover a new thread as you’re writing. More info on the research process is available in our "Conducting Research" resources .

As you’re doing your research, create an annotated bibliography ( see our page on the this type of document ). Much of the information used in an annotated bibliography can be used also in a literature review, so you’ll be not only partially drafting your lit review as you research, but also developing your sense of the larger conversation going on among scholars, professionals, and any other stakeholders in your topic.

Usually you will need to synthesize research rather than just summarizing it. This means drawing connections between sources to create a picture of the scholarly conversation on a topic over time. Many student writers struggle to synthesize because they feel they don’t have anything to add to the scholars they are citing; here are some strategies to help you:

• It often helps to remember that the point of these kinds of syntheses is to show your readers how you understand your research, to help them read the rest of your paper.
• Writing teachers often say synthesis is like hosting a dinner party: imagine all your sources are together in a room, discussing your topic. What are they saying to each other?
• Look at the in-text citations in each paragraph. Are you citing just one source for each paragraph? This usually indicates summary only. When you have multiple sources cited in a paragraph, you are more likely to be synthesizing them (not always, but often
• Read more about synthesis here.

The most interesting literature reviews are often written as arguments (again, as mentioned at the beginning of the page, this is discipline-specific and doesn’t work for all situations). Often, the literature review is where you can establish your research as filling a particular gap or as relevant in a particular way. You have some chance to do this in your introduction in an article, but the literature review section gives a more extended opportunity to establish the conversation in the way you would like your readers to see it. You can choose the intellectual lineage you would like to be part of and whose definitions matter most to your thinking (mostly humanities-specific, but this goes for sciences as well). In addressing these points, you argue for your place in the conversation, which tends to make the lit review more compelling than a simple reporting of other sources.

Harvey Cushing/John Hay Whitney Medical Library

• Collections
• Research Help

YSN Doctoral Programs: Steps in Conducting a Literature Review

• Biomedical Databases
• Global (Public Health) Databases
• Soc. Sci., History, and Law Databases
• Grey Literature
• Trials Registers
• Data and Statistics
• Public Policy
• Google Tips
• Recommended Books
• Steps in Conducting a Literature Review

What is a literature review?

A literature review is an integrated analysis -- not just a summary-- of scholarly writings and other relevant evidence related directly to your research question.  That is, it represents a synthesis of the evidence that provides background information on your topic and shows a association between the evidence and your research question.

A literature review may be a stand alone work or the introduction to a larger research paper, depending on the assignment.  Rely heavily on the guidelines your instructor has given you.

Why is it important?

A literature review is important because it:

• Explains the background of research on a topic.
• Demonstrates why a topic is significant to a subject area.
• Discovers relationships between research studies/ideas.
• Identifies major themes, concepts, and researchers on a topic.
• Identifies critical gaps and points of disagreement.
• Discusses further research questions that logically come out of the previous studies.

APA7 Style resources

APA Style Blog - for those harder to find answers

1. Choose a topic. Define your research question.

Your literature review should be guided by your central research question.  The literature represents background and research developments related to a specific research question, interpreted and analyzed by you in a synthesized way.

• Make sure your research question is not too broad or too narrow.  Is it manageable?
• Begin writing down terms that are related to your question. These will be useful for searches later.
• If you have the opportunity, discuss your topic with your professor and your class mates.

2. Decide on the scope of your review

How many studies do you need to look at? How comprehensive should it be? How many years should it cover? 

• This may depend on your assignment.  How many sources does the assignment require?

3. Select the databases you will use to conduct your searches.

Make a list of the databases you will search. 

Where to find databases:

• use the tabs on this guide
• Find other databases in the Nursing Information Resources web page
• More on the Medical Library web page
• ... and more on the Yale University Library web page

4. Conduct your searches to find the evidence. Keep track of your searches.

• Use the key words in your question, as well as synonyms for those words, as terms in your search. Use the database tutorials for help.
• Save the searches in the databases. This saves time when you want to redo, or modify, the searches. It is also helpful to use as a guide is the searches are not finding any useful results.
• Review the abstracts of research studies carefully. This will save you time.
• Use the bibliographies and references of research studies you find to locate others.
• Check with your professor, or a subject expert in the field, if you are missing any key works in the field.
• Ask your librarian for help at any time.
• Use a citation manager, such as EndNote as the repository for your citations. See the EndNote tutorials for help.

Review the literature

Some questions to help you analyze the research:

• What was the research question of the study you are reviewing? What were the authors trying to discover?
• Was the research funded by a source that could influence the findings?
• What were the research methodologies? Analyze its literature review, the samples and variables used, the results, and the conclusions.
• Does the research seem to be complete? Could it have been conducted more soundly? What further questions does it raise?
• If there are conflicting studies, why do you think that is?
• How are the authors viewed in the field? Has this study been cited? If so, how has it been analyzed?

Tips: 

• Review the abstracts carefully.  
• Keep careful notes so that you may track your thought processes during the research process.
• Create a matrix of the studies for easy analysis, and synthesis, across all of the studies.
• << Previous: Recommended Books
• Last Updated: Jan 4, 2024 10:52 AM
• URL: https://guides.library.yale.edu/YSNDoctoral

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

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

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

What are Literature Reviews?

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

Goals of Literature Reviews

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

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

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

What kinds of sources require a Literature Review?

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

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

Types of Literature Reviews

What kinds of literature reviews are written?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Literature Reviews in the Health Sciences

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

• University of Texas Libraries

Literature Reviews

• What is a literature review?
• Steps in the Literature Review Process
• Define your research question
• Determine inclusion and exclusion criteria
• Choose databases and search
• Review Results
• Synthesize Results
• Analyze Results
• Librarian Support

What is a Literature Review?

A literature or narrative review is a comprehensive review and analysis of the published literature on a specific topic or research question. The literature that is reviewed contains: books, articles, academic articles, conference proceedings, association papers, and dissertations. It contains the most pertinent studies and points to important past and current research and practices. It provides background and context, and shows how your research will contribute to the field. 

A literature review should: 

• Provide a comprehensive and updated review of the literature;
• Explain why this review has taken place;
• Articulate a position or hypothesis;
• Acknowledge and account for conflicting and corroborating points of view

From  S age Research Methods

Purpose of a Literature Review

A literature review can be written as an introduction to a study to:

• Demonstrate how a study fills a gap in research
• Compare a study with other research that's been done

Or it can be a separate work (a research article on its own) which:

• Organizes or describes a topic
• Describes variables within a particular issue/problem

Limitations of a Literature Review

Some of the limitations of a literature review are:

• It's a snapshot in time. Unlike other reviews, this one has beginning, a middle and an end. There may be future developments that could make your work less relevant.
• It may be too focused. Some niche studies may miss the bigger picture.
• It can be difficult to be comprehensive. There is no way to make sure all the literature on a topic was considered.
• It is easy to be biased if you stick to top tier journals. There may be other places where people are publishing exemplary research. Look to open access publications and conferences to reflect a more inclusive collection. Also, make sure to include opposing views (and not just supporting evidence).

Source: Grant, Maria J., and Andrew Booth. “A Typology of Reviews: An Analysis of 14 Review Types and Associated Methodologies.” Health Information & Libraries Journal, vol. 26, no. 2, June 2009, pp. 91–108. Wiley Online Library, doi:10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x.

Meryl Brodsky : Communication and Information Studies

Hannah Chapman Tripp : Biology, Neuroscience

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

Larayne Dallas : Engineering

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

Susan Macicak : Linguistics

Imelda Vetter : Dell Medical School

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

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

• October 26, 2022 recording
• Last Updated: Oct 26, 2022 2:49 PM
• URL: https://guides.lib.utexas.edu/literaturereviews

Have a language expert improve your writing

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

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

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

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

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

There are five key steps to writing a literature review:

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

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

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

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

Table of contents

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

• Quick Run-through
• Step 1 & 2

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

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

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

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

The only proofreading tool specialized in correcting academic writing

The academic proofreading tool has been trained on 1000s of academic texts and by native English editors. Making it the most accurate and reliable proofreading tool for students.

Correct my document today

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

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

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

Download Word doc Download Google doc

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

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

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

Make a list of keywords

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

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

Search for relevant sources

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

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

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

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

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

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

For each publication, ask yourself:

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

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

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

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

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

Take notes and cite your sources

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

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

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

Prevent plagiarism, run a free check.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chronological

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

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

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

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

Methodological

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

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

Theoretical

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

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

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

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

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

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

As you write, make sure to follow these tips:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cite this Scribbr article

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

McCombes, S. (2022, June 07). What is a Literature Review? | Guide, Template, & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved 22 April 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.

Literature Reviews

What this handout is about.

This handout will explain what literature reviews are and offer insights into the form and construction of literature reviews in the humanities, social sciences, and sciences.

Introduction

OK. You’ve got to write a literature review. You dust off a novel and a book of poetry, settle down in your chair, and get ready to issue a “thumbs up” or “thumbs down” as you leaf through the pages. “Literature review” done. Right?

Wrong! The “literature” of a literature review refers to any collection of materials on a topic, not necessarily the great literary texts of the world. “Literature” could be anything from a set of government pamphlets on British colonial methods in Africa to scholarly articles on the treatment of a torn ACL. And a review does not necessarily mean that your reader wants you to give your personal opinion on whether or not you liked these sources.

What is a literature review, then?

A literature review discusses published information in a particular subject area, and sometimes information in a particular subject area within a certain time period.

A literature review can be just a simple summary of the sources, but it usually has an organizational pattern and combines both summary and synthesis. A summary is a recap of the important information of the source, but a synthesis is a re-organization, or a reshuffling, of that information. It might give a new interpretation of old material or combine new with old interpretations. Or it might trace the intellectual progression of the field, including major debates. And depending on the situation, the literature review may evaluate the sources and advise the reader on the most pertinent or relevant.

But how is a literature review different from an academic research paper?

The main focus of an academic research paper is to develop a new argument, and a research paper is likely to contain a literature review as one of its parts. In a research paper, you use the literature as a foundation and as support for a new insight that you contribute. The focus of a literature review, however, is to summarize and synthesize the arguments and ideas of others without adding new contributions.

Why do we write literature reviews?

Literature reviews provide you with a handy guide to a particular topic. If you have limited time to conduct research, literature reviews can give you an overview or act as a stepping stone. For professionals, they are useful reports that keep them up to date with what is current in the field. For scholars, the depth and breadth of the literature review emphasizes the credibility of the writer in his or her field. Literature reviews also provide a solid background for a research paper’s investigation. Comprehensive knowledge of the literature of the field is essential to most research papers.

Who writes these things, anyway?

Literature reviews are written occasionally in the humanities, but mostly in the sciences and social sciences; in experiment and lab reports, they constitute a section of the paper. Sometimes a literature review is written as a paper in itself.

Let’s get to it! What should I do before writing the literature review?

If your assignment is not very specific, seek clarification from your instructor:

• Roughly how many sources should you include?
• What types of sources (books, journal articles, websites)?
• Should you summarize, synthesize, or critique your sources by discussing a common theme or issue?
• Should you evaluate your sources?
• Should you provide subheadings and other background information, such as definitions and/or a history?

Find models

Look for other literature reviews in your area of interest or in the discipline and read them to get a sense of the types of themes you might want to look for in your own research or ways to organize your final review. You can simply put the word “review” in your search engine along with your other topic terms to find articles of this type on the Internet or in an electronic database. The bibliography or reference section of sources you’ve already read are also excellent entry points into your own research.

Narrow your topic

There are hundreds or even thousands of articles and books on most areas of study. The narrower your topic, the easier it will be to limit the number of sources you need to read in order to get a good survey of the material. Your instructor will probably not expect you to read everything that’s out there on the topic, but you’ll make your job easier if you first limit your scope.

Keep in mind that UNC Libraries have research guides and to databases relevant to many fields of study. You can reach out to the subject librarian for a consultation: https://library.unc.edu/support/consultations/ .

And don’t forget to tap into your professor’s (or other professors’) knowledge in the field. Ask your professor questions such as: “If you had to read only one book from the 90’s on topic X, what would it be?” Questions such as this help you to find and determine quickly the most seminal pieces in the field.

Consider whether your sources are current

Some disciplines require that you use information that is as current as possible. In the sciences, for instance, treatments for medical problems are constantly changing according to the latest studies. Information even two years old could be obsolete. However, if you are writing a review in the humanities, history, or social sciences, a survey of the history of the literature may be what is needed, because what is important is how perspectives have changed through the years or within a certain time period. Try sorting through some other current bibliographies or literature reviews in the field to get a sense of what your discipline expects. You can also use this method to consider what is currently of interest to scholars in this field and what is not.

Strategies for writing the literature review

Find a focus.

A literature review, like a term paper, is usually organized around ideas, not the sources themselves as an annotated bibliography would be organized. This means that you will not just simply list your sources and go into detail about each one of them, one at a time. No. As you read widely but selectively in your topic area, consider instead what themes or issues connect your sources together. Do they present one or different solutions? Is there an aspect of the field that is missing? How well do they present the material and do they portray it according to an appropriate theory? Do they reveal a trend in the field? A raging debate? Pick one of these themes to focus the organization of your review.

Convey it to your reader

A literature review may not have a traditional thesis statement (one that makes an argument), but you do need to tell readers what to expect. Try writing a simple statement that lets the reader know what is your main organizing principle. Here are a couple of examples:

The current trend in treatment for congestive heart failure combines surgery and medicine. More and more cultural studies scholars are accepting popular media as a subject worthy of academic consideration.

Consider organization

You’ve got a focus, and you’ve stated it clearly and directly. Now what is the most effective way of presenting the information? What are the most important topics, subtopics, etc., that your review needs to include? And in what order should you present them? Develop an organization for your review at both a global and local level:

First, cover the basic categories

Just like most academic papers, literature reviews also must contain at least three basic elements: an introduction or background information section; the body of the review containing the discussion of sources; and, finally, a conclusion and/or recommendations section to end the paper. The following provides a brief description of the content of each:

• Introduction: Gives a quick idea of the topic of the literature review, such as the central theme or organizational pattern.
• Body: Contains your discussion of sources and is organized either chronologically, thematically, or methodologically (see below for more information on each).
• Conclusions/Recommendations: Discuss what you have drawn from reviewing literature so far. Where might the discussion proceed?

Organizing the body

Once you have the basic categories in place, then you must consider how you will present the sources themselves within the body of your paper. Create an organizational method to focus this section even further.

To help you come up with an overall organizational framework for your review, consider the following scenario:

You’ve decided to focus your literature review on materials dealing with sperm whales. This is because you’ve just finished reading Moby Dick, and you wonder if that whale’s portrayal is really real. You start with some articles about the physiology of sperm whales in biology journals written in the 1980’s. But these articles refer to some British biological studies performed on whales in the early 18th century. So you check those out. Then you look up a book written in 1968 with information on how sperm whales have been portrayed in other forms of art, such as in Alaskan poetry, in French painting, or on whale bone, as the whale hunters in the late 19th century used to do. This makes you wonder about American whaling methods during the time portrayed in Moby Dick, so you find some academic articles published in the last five years on how accurately Herman Melville portrayed the whaling scene in his novel.

Now consider some typical ways of organizing the sources into a review:

• Chronological: If your review follows the chronological method, you could write about the materials above according to when they were published. For instance, first you would talk about the British biological studies of the 18th century, then about Moby Dick, published in 1851, then the book on sperm whales in other art (1968), and finally the biology articles (1980s) and the recent articles on American whaling of the 19th century. But there is relatively no continuity among subjects here. And notice that even though the sources on sperm whales in other art and on American whaling are written recently, they are about other subjects/objects that were created much earlier. Thus, the review loses its chronological focus.
• By publication: Order your sources by publication chronology, then, only if the order demonstrates a more important trend. For instance, you could order a review of literature on biological studies of sperm whales if the progression revealed a change in dissection practices of the researchers who wrote and/or conducted the studies.
• By trend: A better way to organize the above sources chronologically is to examine the sources under another trend, such as the history of whaling. Then your review would have subsections according to eras within this period. For instance, the review might examine whaling from pre-1600-1699, 1700-1799, and 1800-1899. Under this method, you would combine the recent studies on American whaling in the 19th century with Moby Dick itself in the 1800-1899 category, even though the authors wrote a century apart.
• Thematic: Thematic reviews of literature are organized around a topic or issue, rather than the progression of time. However, progression of time may still be an important factor in a thematic review. For instance, the sperm whale review could focus on the development of the harpoon for whale hunting. While the study focuses on one topic, harpoon technology, it will still be organized chronologically. The only difference here between a “chronological” and a “thematic” approach is what is emphasized the most: the development of the harpoon or the harpoon technology.But more authentic thematic reviews tend to break away from chronological order. For instance, a thematic review of material on sperm whales might examine how they are portrayed as “evil” in cultural documents. The subsections might include how they are personified, how their proportions are exaggerated, and their behaviors misunderstood. A review organized in this manner would shift between time periods within each section according to the point made.
• Methodological: A methodological approach differs from the two above in that the focusing factor usually does not have to do with the content of the material. Instead, it focuses on the “methods” of the researcher or writer. For the sperm whale project, one methodological approach would be to look at cultural differences between the portrayal of whales in American, British, and French art work. Or the review might focus on the economic impact of whaling on a community. A methodological scope will influence either the types of documents in the review or the way in which these documents are discussed. Once you’ve decided on the organizational method for the body of the review, the sections you need to include in the paper should be easy to figure out. They should arise out of your organizational strategy. In other words, a chronological review would have subsections for each vital time period. A thematic review would have subtopics based upon factors that relate to the theme or issue.

Sometimes, though, you might need to add additional sections that are necessary for your study, but do not fit in the organizational strategy of the body. What other sections you include in the body is up to you. Put in only what is necessary. Here are a few other sections you might want to consider:

• Current Situation: Information necessary to understand the topic or focus of the literature review.
• History: The chronological progression of the field, the literature, or an idea that is necessary to understand the literature review, if the body of the literature review is not already a chronology.
• Methods and/or Standards: The criteria you used to select the sources in your literature review or the way in which you present your information. For instance, you might explain that your review includes only peer-reviewed articles and journals.

Questions for Further Research: What questions about the field has the review sparked? How will you further your research as a result of the review?

Begin composing

Once you’ve settled on a general pattern of organization, you’re ready to write each section. There are a few guidelines you should follow during the writing stage as well. Here is a sample paragraph from a literature review about sexism and language to illuminate the following discussion:

However, other studies have shown that even gender-neutral antecedents are more likely to produce masculine images than feminine ones (Gastil, 1990). Hamilton (1988) asked students to complete sentences that required them to fill in pronouns that agreed with gender-neutral antecedents such as “writer,” “pedestrian,” and “persons.” The students were asked to describe any image they had when writing the sentence. Hamilton found that people imagined 3.3 men to each woman in the masculine “generic” condition and 1.5 men per woman in the unbiased condition. Thus, while ambient sexism accounted for some of the masculine bias, sexist language amplified the effect. (Source: Erika Falk and Jordan Mills, “Why Sexist Language Affects Persuasion: The Role of Homophily, Intended Audience, and Offense,” Women and Language19:2).

Use evidence

In the example above, the writers refer to several other sources when making their point. A literature review in this sense is just like any other academic research paper. Your interpretation of the available sources must be backed up with evidence to show that what you are saying is valid.

Be selective

Select only the most important points in each source to highlight in the review. The type of information you choose to mention should relate directly to the review’s focus, whether it is thematic, methodological, or chronological.

Use quotes sparingly

Falk and Mills do not use any direct quotes. That is because the survey nature of the literature review does not allow for in-depth discussion or detailed quotes from the text. Some short quotes here and there are okay, though, if you want to emphasize a point, or if what the author said just cannot be rewritten in your own words. Notice that Falk and Mills do quote certain terms that were coined by the author, not common knowledge, or taken directly from the study. But if you find yourself wanting to put in more quotes, check with your instructor.

Summarize and synthesize

Remember to summarize and synthesize your sources within each paragraph as well as throughout the review. The authors here recapitulate important features of Hamilton’s study, but then synthesize it by rephrasing the study’s significance and relating it to their own work.

Keep your own voice

While the literature review presents others’ ideas, your voice (the writer’s) should remain front and center. Notice that Falk and Mills weave references to other sources into their own text, but they still maintain their own voice by starting and ending the paragraph with their own ideas and their own words. The sources support what Falk and Mills are saying.

Use caution when paraphrasing

When paraphrasing a source that is not your own, be sure to represent the author’s information or opinions accurately and in your own words. In the preceding example, Falk and Mills either directly refer in the text to the author of their source, such as Hamilton, or they provide ample notation in the text when the ideas they are mentioning are not their own, for example, Gastil’s. For more information, please see our handout on plagiarism .

Revise, revise, revise

Draft in hand? Now you’re ready to revise. Spending a lot of time revising is a wise idea, because your main objective is to present the material, not the argument. So check over your review again to make sure it follows the assignment and/or your outline. Then, just as you would for most other academic forms of writing, rewrite or rework the language of your review so that you’ve presented your information in the most concise manner possible. Be sure to use terminology familiar to your audience; get rid of unnecessary jargon or slang. Finally, double check that you’ve documented your sources and formatted the review appropriately for your discipline. For tips on the revising and editing process, see our handout on revising drafts .

Works consulted

We consulted these works while writing this handout. This is not a comprehensive list of resources on the handout’s topic, and we encourage you to do your own research to find additional publications. Please do not use this list as a model for the format of your own reference list, as it may not match the citation style you are using. For guidance on formatting citations, please see the UNC Libraries citation tutorial . We revise these tips periodically and welcome feedback.

Anson, Chris M., and Robert A. Schwegler. 2010. The Longman Handbook for Writers and Readers , 6th ed. New York: Longman.

Jones, Robert, Patrick Bizzaro, and Cynthia Selfe. 1997. The Harcourt Brace Guide to Writing in the Disciplines . New York: Harcourt Brace.

Lamb, Sandra E. 1998. How to Write It: A Complete Guide to Everything You’ll Ever Write . Berkeley: Ten Speed Press.

Rosen, Leonard J., and Laurence Behrens. 2003. The Allyn & Bacon Handbook , 5th ed. New York: Longman.

Troyka, Lynn Quittman, and Doug Hesse. 2016. Simon and Schuster Handbook for Writers , 11th ed. London: Pearson.

You may reproduce it for non-commercial use if you use the entire handout and attribute the source: The Writing Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Make a Gift

Libraries | Research Guides

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

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

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

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

• Next: Planning the Review >>
• Last Updated: Jan 17, 2024 10:05 AM
• URL: https://libguides.northwestern.edu/literaturereviews

• USC Libraries
• Research Guides

Organizing Your Social Sciences Research Paper

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

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

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

Importance of a Good Literature Review

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

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

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

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

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

Types of Literature Reviews

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Structure and Writing Style

I.  Thinking About Your Literature Review

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

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

The critical evaluation of each work should consider :

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

II.  Development of the Literature Review

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

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

III.  Ways to Organize Your Literature Review

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

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

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

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

IV.  Writing Your Literature Review

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

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

V.  Common Mistakes to Avoid

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

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

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

Writing Tip

Break Out of Your Disciplinary Box!

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

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

Another Writing Tip

Don't Just Review for Content!

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

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

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

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

Yet Another Writing Tip

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

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

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

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

• << Previous: Theoretical Framework
• Next: Citation Tracking >>
• Last Updated: Apr 24, 2024 10:51 AM
• URL: https://libguides.usc.edu/writingguide

Get science-backed answers as you write with Paperpal's Research feature

What is a Literature Review? How to Write It (with Examples)

A literature review is a critical analysis and synthesis of existing research on a particular topic. It provides an overview of the current state of knowledge, identifies gaps, and highlights key findings in the literature. 1 The purpose of a literature review is to situate your own research within the context of existing scholarship, demonstrating your understanding of the topic and showing how your work contributes to the ongoing conversation in the field. Learning how to write a literature review is a critical tool for successful research. Your ability to summarize and synthesize prior research pertaining to a certain topic demonstrates your grasp on the topic of study, and assists in the learning process. 

Table of Contents

• What is the purpose of literature review? 
• a. Habitat Loss and Species Extinction: 
• b. Range Shifts and Phenological Changes: 
• c. Ocean Acidification and Coral Reefs: 
• d. Adaptive Strategies and Conservation Efforts: 
• How to write a good literature review 
• Choose a Topic and Define the Research Question: 
• Decide on the Scope of Your Review: 
• Select Databases for Searches: 
• Conduct Searches and Keep Track: 
• Review the Literature: 
• Organize and Write Your Literature Review: 
• Frequently asked questions 

What is a literature review?

A well-conducted literature review demonstrates the researcher’s familiarity with the existing literature, establishes the context for their own research, and contributes to scholarly conversations on the topic. One of the purposes of a literature review is also to help researchers avoid duplicating previous work and ensure that their research is informed by and builds upon the existing body of knowledge.

What is the purpose of literature review?

A literature review serves several important purposes within academic and research contexts. Here are some key objectives and functions of a literature review: 2  

• Contextualizing the Research Problem: The literature review provides a background and context for the research problem under investigation. It helps to situate the study within the existing body of knowledge. 
• Identifying Gaps in Knowledge: By identifying gaps, contradictions, or areas requiring further research, the researcher can shape the research question and justify the significance of the study. This is crucial for ensuring that the new research contributes something novel to the field. 
• Understanding Theoretical and Conceptual Frameworks: Literature reviews help researchers gain an understanding of the theoretical and conceptual frameworks used in previous studies. This aids in the development of a theoretical framework for the current research. 
• Providing Methodological Insights: Another purpose of literature reviews is that it allows researchers to learn about the methodologies employed in previous studies. This can help in choosing appropriate research methods for the current study and avoiding pitfalls that others may have encountered. 
• Establishing Credibility: A well-conducted literature review demonstrates the researcher’s familiarity with existing scholarship, establishing their credibility and expertise in the field. It also helps in building a solid foundation for the new research. 
• Informing Hypotheses or Research Questions: The literature review guides the formulation of hypotheses or research questions by highlighting relevant findings and areas of uncertainty in existing literature. 

Literature review example

Let’s delve deeper with a literature review example: Let’s say your literature review is about the impact of climate change on biodiversity. You might format your literature review into sections such as the effects of climate change on habitat loss and species extinction, phenological changes, and marine biodiversity. Each section would then summarize and analyze relevant studies in those areas, highlighting key findings and identifying gaps in the research. The review would conclude by emphasizing the need for further research on specific aspects of the relationship between climate change and biodiversity. The following literature review template provides a glimpse into the recommended literature review structure and content, demonstrating how research findings are organized around specific themes within a broader topic. 

Literature Review on Climate Change Impacts on Biodiversity:

Climate change is a global phenomenon with far-reaching consequences, including significant impacts on biodiversity. This literature review synthesizes key findings from various studies: 

a. Habitat Loss and Species Extinction:

Climate change-induced alterations in temperature and precipitation patterns contribute to habitat loss, affecting numerous species (Thomas et al., 2004). The review discusses how these changes increase the risk of extinction, particularly for species with specific habitat requirements. 

b. Range Shifts and Phenological Changes:

Observations of range shifts and changes in the timing of biological events (phenology) are documented in response to changing climatic conditions (Parmesan & Yohe, 2003). These shifts affect ecosystems and may lead to mismatches between species and their resources. 

c. Ocean Acidification and Coral Reefs:

The review explores the impact of climate change on marine biodiversity, emphasizing ocean acidification’s threat to coral reefs (Hoegh-Guldberg et al., 2007). Changes in pH levels negatively affect coral calcification, disrupting the delicate balance of marine ecosystems. 

d. Adaptive Strategies and Conservation Efforts:

Recognizing the urgency of the situation, the literature review discusses various adaptive strategies adopted by species and conservation efforts aimed at mitigating the impacts of climate change on biodiversity (Hannah et al., 2007). It emphasizes the importance of interdisciplinary approaches for effective conservation planning. 

How to write a good literature review

Writing a literature review involves summarizing and synthesizing existing research on a particular topic. A good literature review format should include the following elements. 

Introduction: The introduction sets the stage for your literature review, providing context and introducing the main focus of your review. 

• Opening Statement: Begin with a general statement about the broader topic and its significance in the field. 
• Scope and Purpose: Clearly define the scope of your literature review. Explain the specific research question or objective you aim to address. 
• Organizational Framework: Briefly outline the structure of your literature review, indicating how you will categorize and discuss the existing research. 
• Significance of the Study: Highlight why your literature review is important and how it contributes to the understanding of the chosen topic. 
• Thesis Statement: Conclude the introduction with a concise thesis statement that outlines the main argument or perspective you will develop in the body of the literature review. 

Body: The body of the literature review is where you provide a comprehensive analysis of existing literature, grouping studies based on themes, methodologies, or other relevant criteria. 

• Organize by Theme or Concept: Group studies that share common themes, concepts, or methodologies. Discuss each theme or concept in detail, summarizing key findings and identifying gaps or areas of disagreement. 
• Critical Analysis: Evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of each study. Discuss the methodologies used, the quality of evidence, and the overall contribution of each work to the understanding of the topic. 
• Synthesis of Findings: Synthesize the information from different studies to highlight trends, patterns, or areas of consensus in the literature. 
• Identification of Gaps: Discuss any gaps or limitations in the existing research and explain how your review contributes to filling these gaps. 
• Transition between Sections: Provide smooth transitions between different themes or concepts to maintain the flow of your literature review. 

Conclusion: The conclusion of your literature review should summarize the main findings, highlight the contributions of the review, and suggest avenues for future research. 

• Summary of Key Findings: Recap the main findings from the literature and restate how they contribute to your research question or objective. 
• Contributions to the Field: Discuss the overall contribution of your literature review to the existing knowledge in the field. 
• Implications and Applications: Explore the practical implications of the findings and suggest how they might impact future research or practice. 
• Recommendations for Future Research: Identify areas that require further investigation and propose potential directions for future research in the field. 
• Final Thoughts: Conclude with a final reflection on the importance of your literature review and its relevance to the broader academic community. 

Conducting a literature review

Conducting a literature review is an essential step in research that involves reviewing and analyzing existing literature on a specific topic. It’s important to know how to do a literature review effectively, so here are the steps to follow: 1  

Choose a Topic and Define the Research Question:

• Select a topic that is relevant to your field of study. 
• Clearly define your research question or objective. Determine what specific aspect of the topic do you want to explore? 

Decide on the Scope of Your Review:

• Determine the timeframe for your literature review. Are you focusing on recent developments, or do you want a historical overview? 
• Consider the geographical scope. Is your review global, or are you focusing on a specific region? 
• Define the inclusion and exclusion criteria. What types of sources will you include? Are there specific types of studies or publications you will exclude? 

Select Databases for Searches:

• Identify relevant databases for your field. Examples include PubMed, IEEE Xplore, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar. 
• Consider searching in library catalogs, institutional repositories, and specialized databases related to your topic. 

Conduct Searches and Keep Track:

• Develop a systematic search strategy using keywords, Boolean operators (AND, OR, NOT), and other search techniques. 
• Record and document your search strategy for transparency and replicability. 
• Keep track of the articles, including publication details, abstracts, and links. Use citation management tools like EndNote, Zotero, or Mendeley to organize your references. 

Review the Literature:

• Evaluate the relevance and quality of each source. Consider the methodology, sample size, and results of studies. 
• Organize the literature by themes or key concepts. Identify patterns, trends, and gaps in the existing research. 
• Summarize key findings and arguments from each source. Compare and contrast different perspectives. 
• Identify areas where there is a consensus in the literature and where there are conflicting opinions. 
• Provide critical analysis and synthesis of the literature. What are the strengths and weaknesses of existing research? 

Organize and Write Your Literature Review:

• Literature review outline should be based on themes, chronological order, or methodological approaches. 
• Write a clear and coherent narrative that synthesizes the information gathered. 
• Use proper citations for each source and ensure consistency in your citation style (APA, MLA, Chicago, etc.). 
• Conclude your literature review by summarizing key findings, identifying gaps, and suggesting areas for future research. 

The literature review sample and detailed advice on writing and conducting a review will help you produce a well-structured report. But remember that a literature review is an ongoing process, and it may be necessary to revisit and update it as your research progresses. 

Frequently asked questions

A literature review is a critical and comprehensive analysis of existing literature (published and unpublished works) on a specific topic or research question and provides a synthesis of the current state of knowledge in a particular field. A well-conducted literature review is crucial for researchers to build upon existing knowledge, avoid duplication of efforts, and contribute to the advancement of their field. It also helps researchers situate their work within a broader context and facilitates the development of a sound theoretical and conceptual framework for their studies.

Literature review is a crucial component of research writing, providing a solid background for a research paper’s investigation. The aim is to keep professionals up to date by providing an understanding of ongoing developments within a specific field, including research methods, and experimental techniques used in that field, and present that knowledge in the form of a written report. Also, the depth and breadth of the literature review emphasizes the credibility of the scholar in his or her field.  

Before writing a literature review, it’s essential to undertake several preparatory steps to ensure that your review is well-researched, organized, and focused. This includes choosing a topic of general interest to you and doing exploratory research on that topic, writing an annotated bibliography, and noting major points, especially those that relate to the position you have taken on the topic. 

Literature reviews and academic research papers are essential components of scholarly work but serve different purposes within the academic realm. 3 A literature review aims to provide a foundation for understanding the current state of research on a particular topic, identify gaps or controversies, and lay the groundwork for future research. Therefore, it draws heavily from existing academic sources, including books, journal articles, and other scholarly publications. In contrast, an academic research paper aims to present new knowledge, contribute to the academic discourse, and advance the understanding of a specific research question. Therefore, it involves a mix of existing literature (in the introduction and literature review sections) and original data or findings obtained through research methods. 

Literature reviews are essential components of academic and research papers, and various strategies can be employed to conduct them effectively. If you want to know how to write a literature review for a research paper, here are four common approaches that are often used by researchers.  Chronological Review: This strategy involves organizing the literature based on the chronological order of publication. It helps to trace the development of a topic over time, showing how ideas, theories, and research have evolved.  Thematic Review: Thematic reviews focus on identifying and analyzing themes or topics that cut across different studies. Instead of organizing the literature chronologically, it is grouped by key themes or concepts, allowing for a comprehensive exploration of various aspects of the topic.  Methodological Review: This strategy involves organizing the literature based on the research methods employed in different studies. It helps to highlight the strengths and weaknesses of various methodologies and allows the reader to evaluate the reliability and validity of the research findings.  Theoretical Review: A theoretical review examines the literature based on the theoretical frameworks used in different studies. This approach helps to identify the key theories that have been applied to the topic and assess their contributions to the understanding of the subject.  It’s important to note that these strategies are not mutually exclusive, and a literature review may combine elements of more than one approach. The choice of strategy depends on the research question, the nature of the literature available, and the goals of the review. Additionally, other strategies, such as integrative reviews or systematic reviews, may be employed depending on the specific requirements of the research.

The literature review format can vary depending on the specific publication guidelines. However, there are some common elements and structures that are often followed. Here is a general guideline for the format of a literature review:  Introduction:   Provide an overview of the topic.  Define the scope and purpose of the literature review.  State the research question or objective.  Body:   Organize the literature by themes, concepts, or chronology.  Critically analyze and evaluate each source.  Discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the studies.  Highlight any methodological limitations or biases.  Identify patterns, connections, or contradictions in the existing research.  Conclusion:   Summarize the key points discussed in the literature review.  Highlight the research gap.  Address the research question or objective stated in the introduction.  Highlight the contributions of the review and suggest directions for future research.

Both annotated bibliographies and literature reviews involve the examination of scholarly sources. While annotated bibliographies focus on individual sources with brief annotations, literature reviews provide a more in-depth, integrated, and comprehensive analysis of existing literature on a specific topic. The key differences are as follows: 

References 

• Denney, A. S., & Tewksbury, R. (2013). How to write a literature review.  Journal of criminal justice education ,  24 (2), 218-234. 
• Pan, M. L. (2016).  Preparing literature reviews: Qualitative and quantitative approaches . Taylor & Francis. 
• Cantero, C. (2019). How to write a literature review.  San José State University Writing Center . 

Paperpal is an AI writing assistant that help academics write better, faster with real-time suggestions for in-depth language and grammar correction. Trained on millions of research manuscripts enhanced by professional academic editors, Paperpal delivers human precision at machine speed.  

Try it for free or upgrade to  Paperpal Prime , which unlocks unlimited access to premium features like academic translation, paraphrasing, contextual synonyms, consistency checks and more. It’s like always having a professional academic editor by your side! Go beyond limitations and experience the future of academic writing.  Get Paperpal Prime now at just US$19 a month!

Related Reads:

• Empirical Research: A Comprehensive Guide for Academics 
• How to Write a Scientific Paper in 10 Steps 
• Life Sciences Papers: 9 Tips for Authors Writing in Biological Sciences
• What is an Argumentative Essay? How to Write It (With Examples)

6 Tips for Post-Doc Researchers to Take Their Career to the Next Level

Self-plagiarism in research: what it is and how to avoid it, you may also like, measuring academic success: definition & strategies for excellence, what is academic writing: tips for students, why traditional editorial process needs an upgrade, paperpal’s new ai research finder empowers authors to..., what is hedging in academic writing  , how to use ai to enhance your college..., ai + human expertise – a paradigm shift..., how to use paperpal to generate emails &..., ai in education: it’s time to change the..., is it ethical to use ai-generated abstracts without....

How to Write a Literature Review

What is a literature review.

• What Is the Literature
• Writing the Review

A literature review is much more than an annotated bibliography or a list of separate reviews of articles and books. It is a critical, analytical summary and synthesis of the current knowledge of a topic. Thus it should compare and relate different theories, findings, etc, rather than just summarize them individually. In addition, it should have a particular focus or theme to organize the review. It does not have to be an exhaustive account of everything published on the topic, but it should discuss all the significant academic literature and other relevant sources important for that focus.

This is meant to be a general guide to writing a literature review: ways to structure one, what to include, how it supplements other research. For more specific help on writing a review, and especially for help on finding the literature to review, sign up for a Personal Research Session .

The specific organization of a literature review depends on the type and purpose of the review, as well as on the specific field or topic being reviewed. But in general, it is a relatively brief but thorough exploration of past and current work on a topic. Rather than a chronological listing of previous work, though, literature reviews are usually organized thematically, such as different theoretical approaches, methodologies, or specific issues or concepts involved in the topic. A thematic organization makes it much easier to examine contrasting perspectives, theoretical approaches, methodologies, findings, etc, and to analyze the strengths and weaknesses of, and point out any gaps in, previous research. And this is the heart of what a literature review is about. A literature review may offer new interpretations, theoretical approaches, or other ideas; if it is part of a research proposal or report it should demonstrate the relationship of the proposed or reported research to others' work; but whatever else it does, it must provide a critical overview of the current state of research efforts. 

Literature reviews are common and very important in the sciences and social sciences. They are less common and have a less important role in the humanities, but they do have a place, especially stand-alone reviews.

Types of Literature Reviews

There are different types of literature reviews, and different purposes for writing a review, but the most common are:

• Stand-alone literature review articles . These provide an overview and analysis of the current state of research on a topic or question. The goal is to evaluate and compare previous research on a topic to provide an analysis of what is currently known, and also to reveal controversies, weaknesses, and gaps in current work, thus pointing to directions for future research. You can find examples published in any number of academic journals, but there is a series of Annual Reviews of *Subject* which are specifically devoted to literature review articles. Writing a stand-alone review is often an effective way to get a good handle on a topic and to develop ideas for your own research program. For example, contrasting theoretical approaches or conflicting interpretations of findings can be the basis of your research project: can you find evidence supporting one interpretation against another, or can you propose an alternative interpretation that overcomes their limitations?
• Part of a research proposal . This could be a proposal for a PhD dissertation, a senior thesis, or a class project. It could also be a submission for a grant. The literature review, by pointing out the current issues and questions concerning a topic, is a crucial part of demonstrating how your proposed research will contribute to the field, and thus of convincing your thesis committee to allow you to pursue the topic of your interest or a funding agency to pay for your research efforts.
• Part of a research report . When you finish your research and write your thesis or paper to present your findings, it should include a literature review to provide the context to which your work is a contribution. Your report, in addition to detailing the methods, results, etc. of your research, should show how your work relates to others' work.

A literature review for a research report is often a revision of the review for a research proposal, which can be a revision of a stand-alone review. Each revision should be a fairly extensive revision. With the increased knowledge of and experience in the topic as you proceed, your understanding of the topic will increase. Thus, you will be in a better position to analyze and critique the literature. In addition, your focus will change as you proceed in your research. Some areas of the literature you initially reviewed will be marginal or irrelevant for your eventual research, and you will need to explore other areas more thoroughly. 

Examples of Literature Reviews

See the series of Annual Reviews of *Subject* which are specifically devoted to literature review articles to find many examples of stand-alone literature reviews in the biomedical, physical, and social sciences. 

Research report articles vary in how they are organized, but a common general structure is to have sections such as:

• Abstract - Brief summary of the contents of the article
• Introduction - A explanation of the purpose of the study, a statement of the research question(s) the study intends to address
• Literature review - A critical assessment of the work done so far on this topic, to show how the current study relates to what has already been done
• Methods - How the study was carried out (e.g. instruments or equipment, procedures, methods to gather and analyze data)
• Results - What was found in the course of the study
• Discussion - What do the results mean
• Conclusion - State the conclusions and implications of the results, and discuss how it relates to the work reviewed in the literature review; also, point to directions for further work in the area

Here are some articles that illustrate variations on this theme. There is no need to read the entire articles (unless the contents interest you); just quickly browse through to see the sections, and see how each section is introduced and what is contained in them.

The Determinants of Undergraduate Grade Point Average: The Relative Importance of Family Background, High School Resources, and Peer Group Effects , in The Journal of Human Resources , v. 34 no. 2 (Spring 1999), p. 268-293.

This article has a standard breakdown of sections:

• Introduction
• Literature Review
• Some discussion sections

First Encounters of the Bureaucratic Kind: Early Freshman Experiences with a Campus Bureaucracy , in The Journal of Higher Education , v. 67 no. 6 (Nov-Dec 1996), p. 660-691.

This one does not have a section specifically labeled as a "literature review" or "review of the literature," but the first few sections cite a long list of other sources discussing previous research in the area before the authors present their own study they are reporting.

• Next: What Is the Literature >>
• Last Updated: Jan 11, 2024 9:48 AM
• URL: https://libguides.wesleyan.edu/litreview

Literature review: your definitive guide

Joanna Wilkinson

This is our ultimate guide on how to write a narrative literature review. It forms part of our Research Smarter series . 

How do you write a narrative literature review?

Researchers worldwide are increasingly reliant on literature reviews. That’s because review articles provide you with a broad picture of the field, and help to synthesize published research that’s expanding at a rapid pace .

In some academic fields, researchers publish more literature reviews than original research papers. The graph below shows the substantial growth of narrative literature reviews in the Web of Science™, alongside the percentage increase of reviews when compared to all document types.

It’s critical that researchers across all career levels understand how to produce an objective, critical summary of published research. This is no easy feat, but a necessary one. Professionally constructed literature reviews – whether written by a student in class or an experienced researcher for publication – should aim to add to the literature rather than detract from it.

To help you write a narrative literature review, we’ve put together some top tips in this blog post.

Best practice tips to write a narrative literature review:

• Don’t miss a paper: tips for a thorough topic search
• Identify key papers (and know how to use them)
• Tips for working with co-authors
• Find the right journal for your literature review using actual data
• Discover literature review examples and templates

We’ll also provide an overview of all the products helpful for your next narrative review, including the Web of Science, EndNote™ and Journal Citation Reports™.

1. Don’t miss a paper: tips for a thorough topic search

Once you’ve settled on your research question, coming up with a good set of keywords to find papers on your topic can be daunting. This isn’t surprising. Put simply, if you fail to include a relevant paper when you write a narrative literature review, the omission will probably get picked up by your professor or peer reviewers. The end result will likely be a low mark or an unpublished manuscript, neither of which will do justice to your many months of hard work.

Research databases and search engines are an integral part of any literature search. It’s important you utilize as many options available through your library as possible. This will help you search an entire discipline (as well as across disciplines) for a thorough narrative review.

We provide a short summary of the various databases and search engines in an earlier Research Smarter blog . These include the Web of Science , Science.gov and the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ).

Like what you see? Share it with others on Twitter:

[bctt tweet=”Writing a #LiteratureReview? Check out the latest @clarivateAG blog for top tips (from topic searches to working with coauthors), examples, templates and more”]

Searching the Web of Science

The Web of Science is a multidisciplinary research engine that contains over 170 million papers from more than 250 academic disciplines. All of the papers in the database are interconnected via citations. That means once you get started with your keyword search, you can follow the trail of cited and citing papers to efficiently find all the relevant literature. This is a great way to ensure you’re not missing anything important when you write a narrative literature review.

We recommend starting your search in the Web of Science Core Collection™. This database covers more than 21,000 carefully selected journals. It is a trusted source to find research papers, and discover top authors and journals (read more about its coverage here ).

Learn more about exploring the Core Collection in our blog, How to find research papers: five tips every researcher should know . Our blog covers various tips, including how to:

• Perform a topic search (and select your keywords)
• Explore the citation network
• Refine your results (refining your search results by reviews, for example, will help you avoid duplication of work, as well as identify trends and gaps in the literature)
• Save your search and set up email alerts

Try our tips on the Web of Science now.

2. Identify key papers (and know how to use them)

As you explore the Web of Science, you may notice that certain papers are marked as “Highly Cited.” These papers can play a significant role when you write a narrative literature review.

Highly Cited papers are recently published papers getting the most attention in your field right now. They form the top 1% of papers based on the number of citations received, compared to other papers published in the same field in the same year.

You will want to identify Highly Cited research as a group of papers. This group will help guide your analysis of the future of the field and opportunities for future research. This is an important component of your conclusion.

Writing reviews is hard work…[it] not only organizes published papers, but also positions t hem in the academic process and presents the future direction.   Prof. Susumu Kitagawa, Highly Cited Researcher, Kyoto University

3. Tips for working with co-authors

Writing a narrative review on your own is hard, but it can be even more challenging if you’re collaborating with a team, especially if your coauthors are working across multiple locations. Luckily, reference management software can improve the coordination between you and your co-authors—both around the department and around the world.

We’ve written about how to use EndNote’s Cite While You Write feature, which will help you save hundreds of hours when writing research . Here, we discuss the features that give you greater ease and control when collaborating with your colleagues.

Use EndNote for narrative reviews

Sharing references is essential for successful collaboration. With EndNote, you can store and share as many references, documents and files as you need with up to 100 people using the software.

You can share simultaneous access to one reference library, regardless of your colleague’s location or organization. You can also choose the type of access each user has on an individual basis. For example, Read-Write access means a select colleague can add and delete references, annotate PDF articles and create custom groups. They’ll also be able to see up to 500 of the team’s most recent changes to the reference library. Read-only is also an option for individuals who don’t need that level of access.

EndNote helps you overcome research limitations by synchronizing library changes every 15 minutes. That means your team can stay up-to-date at any time of the day, supporting an easier, more successful collaboration.

Start your free EndNote trial today .

4.Finding a journal for your literature review

Finding the right journal for your literature review can be a particular pain point for those of you who want to publish. The expansion of scholarly journals has made the task extremely difficult, and can potentially delay the publication of your work by many months.

We’ve written a blog about how you can find the right journal for your manuscript using a rich array of data. You can read our blog here , or head straight to Endnote’s Manuscript Matcher or Journal Citation Report s to try out the best tools for the job.

5. Discover literature review examples and templates

There are a few tips we haven’t covered in this blog, including how to decide on an area of research, develop an interesting storyline, and highlight gaps in the literature. We’ve listed a few blogs here that might help you with this, alongside some literature review examples and outlines to get you started.

Literature Review examples:

• Aggregation-induced emission
• Development and applications of CRISPR-Cas9 for genome engineering
• Object based image analysis for remote sensing

(Make sure you download the free EndNote™ Click browser plugin to access the full-text PDFs).

Templates and outlines:

• Learn how to write a review of literature , Univ. of Wisconsin – Madison
• Structuring a literature review , Australian National University
• Matrix Method for Literature Review: The Review Matrix , Duquesne University

Additional resources:

• Ten simple rules for writing a literature review , Editor, PLoS Computational Biology
• Video: How to write a literature review , UC San Diego Psychology

Related posts

Clarivate welcomes the barcelona declaration on open research information.

Demonstrating socioeconomic impact – a historical perspective of ancient wisdom and modern challenges

Unlocking U.K. research excellence: Key insights from the Research Professional News Live summit

• Resources Home 🏠
• Try SciSpace Copilot
• Search research papers
• Add Copilot Extension
• Try AI Detector
• Try Paraphraser
• Try Citation Generator
• April Papers
• June Papers
• July Papers

How To Write A Literature Review - A Complete Guide

Table of Contents

A literature review is much more than just another section in your research paper. It forms the very foundation of your research. It is a formal piece of writing where you analyze the existing theoretical framework, principles, and assumptions and use that as a base to shape your approach to the research question.

Curating and drafting a solid literature review section not only lends more credibility to your research paper but also makes your research tighter and better focused. But, writing literature reviews is a difficult task. It requires extensive reading, plus you have to consider market trends and technological and political changes, which tend to change in the blink of an eye.

Now streamline your literature review process with the help of SciSpace Copilot. With this AI research assistant, you can efficiently synthesize and analyze a vast amount of information, identify key themes and trends, and uncover gaps in the existing research. Get real-time explanations, summaries, and answers to your questions for the paper you're reviewing, making navigating and understanding the complex literature landscape easier.

In this comprehensive guide, we will explore everything from the definition of a literature review, its appropriate length, various types of literature reviews, and how to write one.

What is a literature review?

A literature review is a collation of survey, research, critical evaluation, and assessment of the existing literature in a preferred domain.

Eminent researcher and academic Arlene Fink, in her book Conducting Research Literature Reviews , defines it as the following:

“A literature review surveys books, scholarly articles, and any other sources relevant to a particular issue, area of research, or theory, and by so doing, provides a description, summary, and critical evaluation of these works in relation to the research problem being investigated.

Literature reviews are designed to provide an overview of sources you have explored while researching a particular topic, and to demonstrate to your readers how your research fits within a larger field of study.”

Simply put, a literature review can be defined as a critical discussion of relevant pre-existing research around your research question and carving out a definitive place for your study in the existing body of knowledge. Literature reviews can be presented in multiple ways: a section of an article, the whole research paper itself, or a chapter of your thesis.

A literature review does function as a summary of sources, but it also allows you to analyze further, interpret, and examine the stated theories, methods, viewpoints, and, of course, the gaps in the existing content.

As an author, you can discuss and interpret the research question and its various aspects and debate your adopted methods to support the claim.

What is the purpose of a literature review?

A literature review is meant to help your readers understand the relevance of your research question and where it fits within the existing body of knowledge. As a researcher, you should use it to set the context, build your argument, and establish the need for your study.

What is the importance of a literature review?

The literature review is a critical part of research papers because it helps you:

• Gain an in-depth understanding of your research question and the surrounding area
• Convey that you have a thorough understanding of your research area and are up-to-date with the latest changes and advancements
• Establish how your research is connected or builds on the existing body of knowledge and how it could contribute to further research
• Elaborate on the validity and suitability of your theoretical framework and research methodology
• Identify and highlight gaps and shortcomings in the existing body of knowledge and how things need to change
• Convey to readers how your study is different or how it contributes to the research area

How long should a literature review be?

Ideally, the literature review should take up 15%-40% of the total length of your manuscript. So, if you have a 10,000-word research paper, the minimum word count could be 1500.

Your literature review format depends heavily on the kind of manuscript you are writing — an entire chapter in case of doctoral theses, a part of the introductory section in a research article, to a full-fledged review article that examines the previously published research on a topic.

Another determining factor is the type of research you are doing. The literature review section tends to be longer for secondary research projects than primary research projects.

What are the different types of literature reviews?

All literature reviews are not the same. There are a variety of possible approaches that you can take. It all depends on the type of research you are pursuing.

Here are the different types of literature reviews:

Argumentative review

It is called an argumentative review when you carefully present literature that only supports or counters a specific argument or premise to establish a viewpoint.

Integrative review

It is a type of literature review focused on building a comprehensive understanding of a topic by combining available theoretical frameworks and empirical evidence.

Methodological review

This approach delves into the ''how'' and the ''what" of the research question —  you cannot look at the outcome in isolation; you should also review the methodology used.

Systematic review

This form consists of an overview of existing evidence pertinent to a clearly formulated research question, which uses pre-specified and standardized methods to identify and critically appraise relevant research and collect, report, and analyze data from the studies included in the review.

Meta-analysis review

Meta-analysis uses statistical methods to summarize the results of independent studies. By combining information from all relevant studies, meta-analysis can provide more precise estimates of the effects than those derived from the individual studies included within a review.

Historical review

Historical literature reviews focus on examining research throughout a period, often starting with the first time an issue, concept, theory, or phenomenon emerged in the literature, then tracing its evolution within the scholarship of a discipline. The purpose is to place research in a historical context to show familiarity with state-of-the-art developments and identify future research's likely directions.

Theoretical Review

This form aims to examine the corpus of theory accumulated regarding an issue, concept, theory, and phenomenon. The theoretical literature review helps to establish what theories exist, the relationships between them, the degree the existing approaches have been investigated, and to develop new hypotheses to be tested.

Scoping Review

The Scoping Review is often used at the beginning of an article, dissertation, or research proposal. It is conducted before the research to highlight gaps in the existing body of knowledge and explains why the project should be greenlit.

State-of-the-Art Review

The State-of-the-Art review is conducted periodically, focusing on the most recent research. It describes what is currently known, understood, or agreed upon regarding the research topic and highlights where there are still disagreements.

Can you use the first person in a literature review?

When writing literature reviews, you should avoid the usage of first-person pronouns. It means that instead of "I argue that" or "we argue that," the appropriate expression would be "this research paper argues that."

Do you need an abstract for a literature review?

Ideally, yes. It is always good to have a condensed summary that is self-contained and independent of the rest of your review. As for how to draft one, you can follow the same fundamental idea when preparing an abstract for a literature review. It should also include:

• The research topic and your motivation behind selecting it
• A one-sentence thesis statement
• An explanation of the kinds of literature featured in the review
• Summary of what you've learned
• Conclusions you drew from the literature you reviewed
• Potential implications and future scope for research

Here's an example of the abstract of a literature review

Is a literature review written in the past tense?

Yes, the literature review should ideally be written in the past tense. You should not use the present or future tense when writing one. The exceptions are when you have statements describing events that happened earlier than the literature you are reviewing or events that are currently occurring; then, you can use the past perfect or present perfect tenses.

How many sources for a literature review?

There are multiple approaches to deciding how many sources to include in a literature review section. The first approach would be to look level you are at as a researcher. For instance, a doctoral thesis might need 60+ sources. In contrast, you might only need to refer to 5-15 sources at the undergraduate level.

The second approach is based on the kind of literature review you are doing — whether it is merely a chapter of your paper or if it is a self-contained paper in itself. When it is just a chapter, sources should equal the total number of pages in your article's body. In the second scenario, you need at least three times as many sources as there are pages in your work.

Quick tips on how to write a literature review

To know how to write a literature review, you must clearly understand its impact and role in establishing your work as substantive research material.

You need to follow the below-mentioned steps, to write a literature review:

• Outline the purpose behind the literature review
• Search relevant literature
• Examine and assess the relevant resources
• Discover connections by drawing deep insights from the resources
• Structure planning to write a good literature review

1. Outline and identify the purpose of  a literature review

As a first step on how to write a literature review, you must know what the research question or topic is and what shape you want your literature review to take. Ensure you understand the research topic inside out, or else seek clarifications. You must be able to the answer below questions before you start:

• How many sources do I need to include?
• What kind of sources should I analyze?
• How much should I critically evaluate each source?
• Should I summarize, synthesize or offer a critique of the sources?
• Do I need to include any background information or definitions?

Additionally, you should know that the narrower your research topic is, the swifter it will be for you to restrict the number of sources to be analyzed.

2. Search relevant literature

Dig deeper into search engines to discover what has already been published around your chosen topic. Make sure you thoroughly go through appropriate reference sources like books, reports, journal articles, government docs, and web-based resources.

You must prepare a list of keywords and their different variations. You can start your search from any library’s catalog, provided you are an active member of that institution. The exact keywords can be extended to widen your research over other databases and academic search engines like:

• Google Scholar
• Microsoft Academic
• Science.gov

Besides, it is not advisable to go through every resource word by word. Alternatively, what you can do is you can start by reading the abstract and then decide whether that source is relevant to your research or not.

Additionally, you must spend surplus time assessing the quality and relevance of resources. It would help if you tried preparing a list of citations to ensure that there lies no repetition of authors, publications, or articles in the literature review.

3. Examine and assess the sources

It is nearly impossible for you to go through every detail in the research article. So rather than trying to fetch every detail, you have to analyze and decide which research sources resemble closest and appear relevant to your chosen domain.

While analyzing the sources, you should look to find out answers to questions like:

• What question or problem has the author been describing and debating?
• What is the definition of critical aspects?
• How well the theories, approach, and methodology have been explained?
• Whether the research theory used some conventional or new innovative approach?
• How relevant are the key findings of the work?
• In what ways does it relate to other sources on the same topic?
• What challenges does this research paper pose to the existing theory
• What are the possible contributions or benefits it adds to the subject domain?

Be always mindful that you refer only to credible and authentic resources. It would be best if you always take references from different publications to validate your theory.

Always keep track of important information or data you can present in your literature review right from the beginning. It will help steer your path from any threats of plagiarism and also make it easier to curate an annotated bibliography or reference section.

4. Discover connections

At this stage, you must start deciding on the argument and structure of your literature review. To accomplish this, you must discover and identify the relations and connections between various resources while drafting your abstract.

A few aspects that you should be aware of while writing a literature review include:

• Rise to prominence: Theories and methods that have gained reputation and supporters over time.
• Constant scrutiny: Concepts or theories that repeatedly went under examination.
• Contradictions and conflicts: Theories, both the supporting and the contradictory ones, for the research topic.
• Knowledge gaps: What exactly does it fail to address, and how to bridge them with further research?
• Influential resources: Significant research projects available that have been upheld as milestones or perhaps, something that can modify the current trends

Once you join the dots between various past research works, it will be easier for you to draw a conclusion and identify your contribution to the existing knowledge base.

5. Structure planning to write a good literature review

There exist different ways towards planning and executing the structure of a literature review. The format of a literature review varies and depends upon the length of the research.

Like any other research paper, the literature review format must contain three sections: introduction, body, and conclusion. The goals and objectives of the research question determine what goes inside these three sections.

Nevertheless, a good literature review can be structured according to the chronological, thematic, methodological, or theoretical framework approach.

Literature review samples

1. Standalone

2. As a section of a research paper

How SciSpace Discover makes literature review a breeze?

SciSpace Discover is a one-stop solution to do an effective literature search and get barrier-free access to scientific knowledge. It is an excellent repository where you can find millions of only peer-reviewed articles and full-text PDF files. Here’s more on how you can use it:

Find the right information

Find what you want quickly and easily with comprehensive search filters that let you narrow down papers according to PDF availability, year of publishing, document type, and affiliated institution. Moreover, you can sort the results based on the publishing date, citation count, and relevance.

Assess credibility of papers quickly

When doing the literature review, it is critical to establish the quality of your sources. They form the foundation of your research. SciSpace Discover helps you assess the quality of a source by providing an overview of its references, citations, and performance metrics.

Get the complete picture in no time

SciSpace Discover’s personalized suggestion engine helps you stay on course and get the complete picture of the topic from one place. Every time you visit an article page, it provides you links to related papers. Besides that, it helps you understand what’s trending, who are the top authors, and who are the leading publishers on a topic.

Make referring sources super easy

To ensure you don't lose track of your sources, you must start noting down your references when doing the literature review. SciSpace Discover makes this step effortless. Click the 'cite' button on an article page, and you will receive preloaded citation text in multiple styles — all you've to do is copy-paste it into your manuscript.

Final tips on how to write a literature review

A massive chunk of time and effort is required to write a good literature review. But, if you go about it systematically, you'll be able to save a ton of time and build a solid foundation for your research.

We hope this guide has helped you answer several key questions you have about writing literature reviews.

Would you like to explore SciSpace Discover and kick off your literature search right away? You can get started here .

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

1. how to start a literature review.

• What questions do you want to answer?

• What sources do you need to answer these questions?

• What information do these sources contain?

• How can you use this information to answer your questions?

2. What to include in a literature review?

• A brief background of the problem or issue

• What has previously been done to address the problem or issue

• A description of what you will do in your project

• How this study will contribute to research on the subject

3. Why literature review is important?

The literature review is an important part of any research project because it allows the writer to look at previous studies on a topic and determine existing gaps in the literature, as well as what has already been done. It will also help them to choose the most appropriate method for their own study.

4. How to cite a literature review in APA format?

To cite a literature review in APA style, you need to provide the author's name, the title of the article, and the year of publication. For example: Patel, A. B., & Stokes, G. S. (2012). The relationship between personality and intelligence: A meta-analysis of longitudinal research. Personality and Individual Differences, 53(1), 16-21

5. What are the components of a literature review?

• A brief introduction to the topic, including its background and context. The introduction should also include a rationale for why the study is being conducted and what it will accomplish.

• A description of the methodologies used in the study. This can include information about data collection methods, sample size, and statistical analyses.

• A presentation of the findings in an organized format that helps readers follow along with the author's conclusions.

6. What are common errors in writing literature review?

• Not spending enough time to critically evaluate the relevance of resources, observations and conclusions.

• Totally relying on secondary data while ignoring primary data.

• Letting your personal bias seep into your interpretation of existing literature.

• No detailed explanation of the procedure to discover and identify an appropriate literature review.

7. What are the 5 C's of writing literature review?

• Cite - the sources you utilized and referenced in your research.

• Compare - existing arguments, hypotheses, methodologies, and conclusions found in the knowledge base.

• Contrast - the arguments, topics, methodologies, approaches, and disputes that may be found in the literature.

• Critique - the literature and describe the ideas and opinions you find more convincing and why.

• Connect - the various studies you reviewed in your research.

8. How many sources should a literature review have?

When it is just a chapter, sources should equal the total number of pages in your article's body. if it is a self-contained paper in itself, you need at least three times as many sources as there are pages in your work.

9. Can literature review have diagrams?

• To represent an abstract idea or concept

• To explain the steps of a process or procedure

• To help readers understand the relationships between different concepts

10. How old should sources be in a literature review?

Sources for a literature review should be as current as possible or not older than ten years. The only exception to this rule is if you are reviewing a historical topic and need to use older sources.

11. What are the types of literature review?

• Argumentative review

• Integrative review

• Methodological review

• Systematic review

• Meta-analysis review

• Historical review

• Theoretical review

• Scoping review

• State-of-the-Art review

12. Is a literature review mandatory?

Yes. Literature review is a mandatory part of any research project. It is a critical step in the process that allows you to establish the scope of your research, and provide a background for the rest of your work.

But before you go,

• Six Online Tools for Easy Literature Review
• Evaluating literature review: systematic vs. scoping reviews
• Systematic Approaches to a Successful Literature Review
• Writing Integrative Literature Reviews: Guidelines and Examples

You might also like

Consensus GPT vs. SciSpace GPT: Choose the Best GPT for Research

Literature Review and Theoretical Framework: Understanding the Differences

Types of Essays in Academic Writing - Quick Guide (2024)

An official website of the United States government

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

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

• Publications
• Account settings

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

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• PLoS Comput Biol
• v.9(7); 2013 Jul

Ten Simple Rules for Writing a Literature Review

Marco pautasso.

1 Centre for Functional and Evolutionary Ecology (CEFE), CNRS, Montpellier, France

2 Centre for Biodiversity Synthesis and Analysis (CESAB), FRB, Aix-en-Provence, France

Literature reviews are in great demand in most scientific fields. Their need stems from the ever-increasing output of scientific publications [1] . For example, compared to 1991, in 2008 three, eight, and forty times more papers were indexed in Web of Science on malaria, obesity, and biodiversity, respectively [2] . Given such mountains of papers, scientists cannot be expected to examine in detail every single new paper relevant to their interests [3] . Thus, it is both advantageous and necessary to rely on regular summaries of the recent literature. Although recognition for scientists mainly comes from primary research, timely literature reviews can lead to new synthetic insights and are often widely read [4] . For such summaries to be useful, however, they need to be compiled in a professional way [5] .

When starting from scratch, reviewing the literature can require a titanic amount of work. That is why researchers who have spent their career working on a certain research issue are in a perfect position to review that literature. Some graduate schools are now offering courses in reviewing the literature, given that most research students start their project by producing an overview of what has already been done on their research issue [6] . However, it is likely that most scientists have not thought in detail about how to approach and carry out a literature review.

Reviewing the literature requires the ability to juggle multiple tasks, from finding and evaluating relevant material to synthesising information from various sources, from critical thinking to paraphrasing, evaluating, and citation skills [7] . In this contribution, I share ten simple rules I learned working on about 25 literature reviews as a PhD and postdoctoral student. Ideas and insights also come from discussions with coauthors and colleagues, as well as feedback from reviewers and editors.

Rule 1: Define a Topic and Audience

How to choose which topic to review? There are so many issues in contemporary science that you could spend a lifetime of attending conferences and reading the literature just pondering what to review. On the one hand, if you take several years to choose, several other people may have had the same idea in the meantime. On the other hand, only a well-considered topic is likely to lead to a brilliant literature review [8] . The topic must at least be:

• interesting to you (ideally, you should have come across a series of recent papers related to your line of work that call for a critical summary),
• an important aspect of the field (so that many readers will be interested in the review and there will be enough material to write it), and
• a well-defined issue (otherwise you could potentially include thousands of publications, which would make the review unhelpful).

Ideas for potential reviews may come from papers providing lists of key research questions to be answered [9] , but also from serendipitous moments during desultory reading and discussions. In addition to choosing your topic, you should also select a target audience. In many cases, the topic (e.g., web services in computational biology) will automatically define an audience (e.g., computational biologists), but that same topic may also be of interest to neighbouring fields (e.g., computer science, biology, etc.).

Rule 2: Search and Re-search the Literature

After having chosen your topic and audience, start by checking the literature and downloading relevant papers. Five pieces of advice here:

• keep track of the search items you use (so that your search can be replicated [10] ),
• keep a list of papers whose pdfs you cannot access immediately (so as to retrieve them later with alternative strategies),
• use a paper management system (e.g., Mendeley, Papers, Qiqqa, Sente),
• define early in the process some criteria for exclusion of irrelevant papers (these criteria can then be described in the review to help define its scope), and
• do not just look for research papers in the area you wish to review, but also seek previous reviews.

The chances are high that someone will already have published a literature review ( Figure 1 ), if not exactly on the issue you are planning to tackle, at least on a related topic. If there are already a few or several reviews of the literature on your issue, my advice is not to give up, but to carry on with your own literature review,

The bottom-right situation (many literature reviews but few research papers) is not just a theoretical situation; it applies, for example, to the study of the impacts of climate change on plant diseases, where there appear to be more literature reviews than research studies [33] .

• discussing in your review the approaches, limitations, and conclusions of past reviews,
• trying to find a new angle that has not been covered adequately in the previous reviews, and
• incorporating new material that has inevitably accumulated since their appearance.

When searching the literature for pertinent papers and reviews, the usual rules apply:

• be thorough,
• use different keywords and database sources (e.g., DBLP, Google Scholar, ISI Proceedings, JSTOR Search, Medline, Scopus, Web of Science), and
• look at who has cited past relevant papers and book chapters.

Rule 3: Take Notes While Reading

If you read the papers first, and only afterwards start writing the review, you will need a very good memory to remember who wrote what, and what your impressions and associations were while reading each single paper. My advice is, while reading, to start writing down interesting pieces of information, insights about how to organize the review, and thoughts on what to write. This way, by the time you have read the literature you selected, you will already have a rough draft of the review.

Of course, this draft will still need much rewriting, restructuring, and rethinking to obtain a text with a coherent argument [11] , but you will have avoided the danger posed by staring at a blank document. Be careful when taking notes to use quotation marks if you are provisionally copying verbatim from the literature. It is advisable then to reformulate such quotes with your own words in the final draft. It is important to be careful in noting the references already at this stage, so as to avoid misattributions. Using referencing software from the very beginning of your endeavour will save you time.

Rule 4: Choose the Type of Review You Wish to Write

After having taken notes while reading the literature, you will have a rough idea of the amount of material available for the review. This is probably a good time to decide whether to go for a mini- or a full review. Some journals are now favouring the publication of rather short reviews focusing on the last few years, with a limit on the number of words and citations. A mini-review is not necessarily a minor review: it may well attract more attention from busy readers, although it will inevitably simplify some issues and leave out some relevant material due to space limitations. A full review will have the advantage of more freedom to cover in detail the complexities of a particular scientific development, but may then be left in the pile of the very important papers “to be read” by readers with little time to spare for major monographs.

There is probably a continuum between mini- and full reviews. The same point applies to the dichotomy of descriptive vs. integrative reviews. While descriptive reviews focus on the methodology, findings, and interpretation of each reviewed study, integrative reviews attempt to find common ideas and concepts from the reviewed material [12] . A similar distinction exists between narrative and systematic reviews: while narrative reviews are qualitative, systematic reviews attempt to test a hypothesis based on the published evidence, which is gathered using a predefined protocol to reduce bias [13] , [14] . When systematic reviews analyse quantitative results in a quantitative way, they become meta-analyses. The choice between different review types will have to be made on a case-by-case basis, depending not just on the nature of the material found and the preferences of the target journal(s), but also on the time available to write the review and the number of coauthors [15] .

Rule 5: Keep the Review Focused, but Make It of Broad Interest

Whether your plan is to write a mini- or a full review, it is good advice to keep it focused 16 , 17 . Including material just for the sake of it can easily lead to reviews that are trying to do too many things at once. The need to keep a review focused can be problematic for interdisciplinary reviews, where the aim is to bridge the gap between fields [18] . If you are writing a review on, for example, how epidemiological approaches are used in modelling the spread of ideas, you may be inclined to include material from both parent fields, epidemiology and the study of cultural diffusion. This may be necessary to some extent, but in this case a focused review would only deal in detail with those studies at the interface between epidemiology and the spread of ideas.

While focus is an important feature of a successful review, this requirement has to be balanced with the need to make the review relevant to a broad audience. This square may be circled by discussing the wider implications of the reviewed topic for other disciplines.

Rule 6: Be Critical and Consistent

Reviewing the literature is not stamp collecting. A good review does not just summarize the literature, but discusses it critically, identifies methodological problems, and points out research gaps [19] . After having read a review of the literature, a reader should have a rough idea of:

• the major achievements in the reviewed field,
• the main areas of debate, and
• the outstanding research questions.

It is challenging to achieve a successful review on all these fronts. A solution can be to involve a set of complementary coauthors: some people are excellent at mapping what has been achieved, some others are very good at identifying dark clouds on the horizon, and some have instead a knack at predicting where solutions are going to come from. If your journal club has exactly this sort of team, then you should definitely write a review of the literature! In addition to critical thinking, a literature review needs consistency, for example in the choice of passive vs. active voice and present vs. past tense.

Rule 7: Find a Logical Structure

Like a well-baked cake, a good review has a number of telling features: it is worth the reader's time, timely, systematic, well written, focused, and critical. It also needs a good structure. With reviews, the usual subdivision of research papers into introduction, methods, results, and discussion does not work or is rarely used. However, a general introduction of the context and, toward the end, a recapitulation of the main points covered and take-home messages make sense also in the case of reviews. For systematic reviews, there is a trend towards including information about how the literature was searched (database, keywords, time limits) [20] .

How can you organize the flow of the main body of the review so that the reader will be drawn into and guided through it? It is generally helpful to draw a conceptual scheme of the review, e.g., with mind-mapping techniques. Such diagrams can help recognize a logical way to order and link the various sections of a review [21] . This is the case not just at the writing stage, but also for readers if the diagram is included in the review as a figure. A careful selection of diagrams and figures relevant to the reviewed topic can be very helpful to structure the text too [22] .

Rule 8: Make Use of Feedback

Reviews of the literature are normally peer-reviewed in the same way as research papers, and rightly so [23] . As a rule, incorporating feedback from reviewers greatly helps improve a review draft. Having read the review with a fresh mind, reviewers may spot inaccuracies, inconsistencies, and ambiguities that had not been noticed by the writers due to rereading the typescript too many times. It is however advisable to reread the draft one more time before submission, as a last-minute correction of typos, leaps, and muddled sentences may enable the reviewers to focus on providing advice on the content rather than the form.

Feedback is vital to writing a good review, and should be sought from a variety of colleagues, so as to obtain a diversity of views on the draft. This may lead in some cases to conflicting views on the merits of the paper, and on how to improve it, but such a situation is better than the absence of feedback. A diversity of feedback perspectives on a literature review can help identify where the consensus view stands in the landscape of the current scientific understanding of an issue [24] .

Rule 9: Include Your Own Relevant Research, but Be Objective

In many cases, reviewers of the literature will have published studies relevant to the review they are writing. This could create a conflict of interest: how can reviewers report objectively on their own work [25] ? Some scientists may be overly enthusiastic about what they have published, and thus risk giving too much importance to their own findings in the review. However, bias could also occur in the other direction: some scientists may be unduly dismissive of their own achievements, so that they will tend to downplay their contribution (if any) to a field when reviewing it.

In general, a review of the literature should neither be a public relations brochure nor an exercise in competitive self-denial. If a reviewer is up to the job of producing a well-organized and methodical review, which flows well and provides a service to the readership, then it should be possible to be objective in reviewing one's own relevant findings. In reviews written by multiple authors, this may be achieved by assigning the review of the results of a coauthor to different coauthors.

Rule 10: Be Up-to-Date, but Do Not Forget Older Studies

Given the progressive acceleration in the publication of scientific papers, today's reviews of the literature need awareness not just of the overall direction and achievements of a field of inquiry, but also of the latest studies, so as not to become out-of-date before they have been published. Ideally, a literature review should not identify as a major research gap an issue that has just been addressed in a series of papers in press (the same applies, of course, to older, overlooked studies (“sleeping beauties” [26] )). This implies that literature reviewers would do well to keep an eye on electronic lists of papers in press, given that it can take months before these appear in scientific databases. Some reviews declare that they have scanned the literature up to a certain point in time, but given that peer review can be a rather lengthy process, a full search for newly appeared literature at the revision stage may be worthwhile. Assessing the contribution of papers that have just appeared is particularly challenging, because there is little perspective with which to gauge their significance and impact on further research and society.

Inevitably, new papers on the reviewed topic (including independently written literature reviews) will appear from all quarters after the review has been published, so that there may soon be the need for an updated review. But this is the nature of science [27] – [32] . I wish everybody good luck with writing a review of the literature.

Acknowledgments

Many thanks to M. Barbosa, K. Dehnen-Schmutz, T. Döring, D. Fontaneto, M. Garbelotto, O. Holdenrieder, M. Jeger, D. Lonsdale, A. MacLeod, P. Mills, M. Moslonka-Lefebvre, G. Stancanelli, P. Weisberg, and X. Xu for insights and discussions, and to P. Bourne, T. Matoni, and D. Smith for helpful comments on a previous draft.

Funding Statement

This work was funded by the French Foundation for Research on Biodiversity (FRB) through its Centre for Synthesis and Analysis of Biodiversity data (CESAB), as part of the NETSEED research project. The funders had no role in the preparation of the manuscript.

How To Write An A-Grade Literature Review

3 straightforward steps (with examples) + free template.

By: Derek Jansen (MBA) | Expert Reviewed By: Dr. Eunice Rautenbach | October 2019

Quality research is about building onto the existing work of others , “standing on the shoulders of giants”, as Newton put it. The literature review chapter of your dissertation, thesis or research project is where you synthesise this prior work and lay the theoretical foundation for your own research.

Long story short, this chapter is a pretty big deal, which is why you want to make sure you get it right . In this post, I’ll show you exactly how to write a literature review in three straightforward steps, so you can conquer this vital chapter (the smart way).

Overview: The Literature Review Process

• Understanding the “ why “
• Finding the relevant literature
• Cataloguing and synthesising the information
• Outlining & writing up your literature review
• Example of a literature review

But first, the “why”…

Before we unpack how to write the literature review chapter, we’ve got to look at the why . To put it bluntly, if you don’t understand the function and purpose of the literature review process, there’s no way you can pull it off well. So, what exactly is the purpose of the literature review?

Well, there are (at least) four core functions:

• For you to gain an understanding (and demonstrate this understanding) of where the research is at currently, what the key arguments and disagreements are.
• For you to identify the gap(s) in the literature and then use this as justification for your own research topic.
• To help you build a conceptual framework for empirical testing (if applicable to your research topic).
• To inform your methodological choices and help you source tried and tested questionnaires (for interviews ) and measurement instruments (for surveys ).

Most students understand the first point but don’t give any thought to the rest. To get the most from the literature review process, you must keep all four points front of mind as you review the literature (more on this shortly), or you’ll land up with a wonky foundation.

Okay – with the why out the way, let’s move on to the how . As mentioned above, writing your literature review is a process, which I’ll break down into three steps:

• Finding the most suitable literature
• Understanding , distilling and organising the literature
• Planning and writing up your literature review chapter

Importantly, you must complete steps one and two before you start writing up your chapter. I know it’s very tempting, but don’t try to kill two birds with one stone and write as you read. You’ll invariably end up wasting huge amounts of time re-writing and re-shaping, or you’ll just land up with a disjointed, hard-to-digest mess . Instead, you need to read first and distil the information, then plan and execute the writing.

Step 1: Find the relevant literature

Naturally, the first step in the literature review journey is to hunt down the existing research that’s relevant to your topic. While you probably already have a decent base of this from your research proposal , you need to expand on this substantially in the dissertation or thesis itself.

Essentially, you need to be looking for any existing literature that potentially helps you answer your research question (or develop it, if that’s not yet pinned down). There are numerous ways to find relevant literature, but I’ll cover my top four tactics here. I’d suggest combining all four methods to ensure that nothing slips past you:

Method 1 – Google Scholar Scrubbing

Google’s academic search engine, Google Scholar , is a great starting point as it provides a good high-level view of the relevant journal articles for whatever keyword you throw at it. Most valuably, it tells you how many times each article has been cited, which gives you an idea of how credible (or at least, popular) it is. Some articles will be free to access, while others will require an account, which brings us to the next method.

Method 2 – University Database Scrounging

Generally, universities provide students with access to an online library, which provides access to many (but not all) of the major journals.

So, if you find an article using Google Scholar that requires paid access (which is quite likely), search for that article in your university’s database – if it’s listed there, you’ll have access. Note that, generally, the search engine capabilities of these databases are poor, so make sure you search for the exact article name, or you might not find it.

Method 3 – Journal Article Snowballing

At the end of every academic journal article, you’ll find a list of references. As with any academic writing, these references are the building blocks of the article, so if the article is relevant to your topic, there’s a good chance a portion of the referenced works will be too. Do a quick scan of the titles and see what seems relevant, then search for the relevant ones in your university’s database.

Method 4 – Dissertation Scavenging

Similar to Method 3 above, you can leverage other students’ dissertations. All you have to do is skim through literature review chapters of existing dissertations related to your topic and you’ll find a gold mine of potential literature. Usually, your university will provide you with access to previous students’ dissertations, but you can also find a much larger selection in the following databases:

• Open Access Theses & Dissertations
• Stanford SearchWorks

Keep in mind that dissertations and theses are not as academically sound as published, peer-reviewed journal articles (because they’re written by students, not professionals), so be sure to check the credibility of any sources you find using this method. You can do this by assessing the citation count of any given article in Google Scholar. If you need help with assessing the credibility of any article, or with finding relevant research in general, you can chat with one of our Research Specialists .

Alright – with a good base of literature firmly under your belt, it’s time to move onto the next step.

Need a helping hand?

Step 2: Log, catalogue and synthesise

Once you’ve built a little treasure trove of articles, it’s time to get reading and start digesting the information – what does it all mean?

While I present steps one and two (hunting and digesting) as sequential, in reality, it’s more of a back-and-forth tango – you’ll read a little , then have an idea, spot a new citation, or a new potential variable, and then go back to searching for articles. This is perfectly natural – through the reading process, your thoughts will develop , new avenues might crop up, and directional adjustments might arise. This is, after all, one of the main purposes of the literature review process (i.e. to familiarise yourself with the current state of research in your field).

As you’re working through your treasure chest, it’s essential that you simultaneously start organising the information. There are three aspects to this:

• Logging reference information
• Building an organised catalogue
• Distilling and synthesising the information

I’ll discuss each of these below:

2.1 – Log the reference information

As you read each article, you should add it to your reference management software. I usually recommend Mendeley for this purpose (see the Mendeley 101 video below), but you can use whichever software you’re comfortable with. Most importantly, make sure you load EVERY article you read into your reference manager, even if it doesn’t seem very relevant at the time.

2.2 – Build an organised catalogue

In the beginning, you might feel confident that you can remember who said what, where, and what their main arguments were. Trust me, you won’t. If you do a thorough review of the relevant literature (as you must!), you’re going to read many, many articles, and it’s simply impossible to remember who said what, when, and in what context . Also, without the bird’s eye view that a catalogue provides, you’ll miss connections between various articles, and have no view of how the research developed over time. Simply put, it’s essential to build your own catalogue of the literature.

I would suggest using Excel to build your catalogue, as it allows you to run filters, colour code and sort – all very useful when your list grows large (which it will). How you lay your spreadsheet out is up to you, but I’d suggest you have the following columns (at minimum):

• Author, date, title – Start with three columns containing this core information. This will make it easy for you to search for titles with certain words, order research by date, or group by author.
• Categories or keywords – You can either create multiple columns, one for each category/theme and then tick the relevant categories, or you can have one column with keywords.
• Key arguments/points – Use this column to succinctly convey the essence of the article, the key arguments and implications thereof for your research.
• Context – Note the socioeconomic context in which the research was undertaken. For example, US-based, respondents aged 25-35, lower- income, etc. This will be useful for making an argument about gaps in the research.
• Methodology – Note which methodology was used and why. Also, note any issues you feel arise due to the methodology. Again, you can use this to make an argument about gaps in the research.
• Quotations – Note down any quoteworthy lines you feel might be useful later.
• Notes – Make notes about anything not already covered. For example, linkages to or disagreements with other theories, questions raised but unanswered, shortcomings or limitations, and so forth.

If you’d like, you can try out our free catalog template here (see screenshot below).

2.3 – Digest and synthesise

Most importantly, as you work through the literature and build your catalogue, you need to synthesise all the information in your own mind – how does it all fit together? Look for links between the various articles and try to develop a bigger picture view of the state of the research. Some important questions to ask yourself are:

• What answers does the existing research provide to my own research questions ?
• Which points do the researchers agree (and disagree) on?
• How has the research developed over time?
• Where do the gaps in the current research lie?

To help you develop a big-picture view and synthesise all the information, you might find mind mapping software such as Freemind useful. Alternatively, if you’re a fan of physical note-taking, investing in a large whiteboard might work for you.

Step 3: Outline and write it up!

Once you’re satisfied that you have digested and distilled all the relevant literature in your mind, it’s time to put pen to paper (or rather, fingers to keyboard). There are two steps here – outlining and writing:

3.1 – Draw up your outline

Having spent so much time reading, it might be tempting to just start writing up without a clear structure in mind. However, it’s critically important to decide on your structure and develop a detailed outline before you write anything. Your literature review chapter needs to present a clear, logical and an easy to follow narrative – and that requires some planning. Don’t try to wing it!

Naturally, you won’t always follow the plan to the letter, but without a detailed outline, you’re more than likely going to end up with a disjointed pile of waffle , and then you’re going to spend a far greater amount of time re-writing, hacking and patching. The adage, “measure twice, cut once” is very suitable here.

In terms of structure, the first decision you’ll have to make is whether you’ll lay out your review thematically (into themes) or chronologically (by date/period). The right choice depends on your topic, research objectives and research questions, which we discuss in this article .

Once that’s decided, you need to draw up an outline of your entire chapter in bullet point format. Try to get as detailed as possible, so that you know exactly what you’ll cover where, how each section will connect to the next, and how your entire argument will develop throughout the chapter. Also, at this stage, it’s a good idea to allocate rough word count limits for each section, so that you can identify word count problems before you’ve spent weeks or months writing!

PS – check out our free literature review chapter template…

3.2 – Get writing

With a detailed outline at your side, it’s time to start writing up (finally!). At this stage, it’s common to feel a bit of writer’s block and find yourself procrastinating under the pressure of finally having to put something on paper. To help with this, remember that the objective of the first draft is not perfection – it’s simply to get your thoughts out of your head and onto paper, after which you can refine them. The structure might change a little, the word count allocations might shift and shuffle, and you might add or remove a section – that’s all okay. Don’t worry about all this on your first draft – just get your thoughts down on paper.

Once you’ve got a full first draft (however rough it may be), step away from it for a day or two (longer if you can) and then come back at it with fresh eyes. Pay particular attention to the flow and narrative – does it fall fit together and flow from one section to another smoothly? Now’s the time to try to improve the linkage from each section to the next, tighten up the writing to be more concise, trim down word count and sand it down into a more digestible read.

Once you’ve done that, give your writing to a friend or colleague who is not a subject matter expert and ask them if they understand the overall discussion. The best way to assess this is to ask them to explain the chapter back to you. This technique will give you a strong indication of which points were clearly communicated and which weren’t. If you’re working with Grad Coach, this is a good time to have your Research Specialist review your chapter.

Finally, tighten it up and send it off to your supervisor for comment. Some might argue that you should be sending your work to your supervisor sooner than this (indeed your university might formally require this), but in my experience, supervisors are extremely short on time (and often patience), so, the more refined your chapter is, the less time they’ll waste on addressing basic issues (which you know about already) and the more time they’ll spend on valuable feedback that will increase your mark-earning potential.

Literature Review Example

In the video below, we unpack an actual literature review so that you can see how all the core components come together in reality.

Let’s Recap

In this post, we’ve covered how to research and write up a high-quality literature review chapter. Let’s do a quick recap of the key takeaways:

• It is essential to understand the WHY of the literature review before you read or write anything. Make sure you understand the 4 core functions of the process.
• The first step is to hunt down the relevant literature . You can do this using Google Scholar, your university database, the snowballing technique and by reviewing other dissertations and theses.
• Next, you need to log all the articles in your reference manager , build your own catalogue of literature and synthesise all the research.
• Following that, you need to develop a detailed outline of your entire chapter – the more detail the better. Don’t start writing without a clear outline (on paper, not in your head!)
• Write up your first draft in rough form – don’t aim for perfection. Remember, done beats perfect.
• Refine your second draft and get a layman’s perspective on it . Then tighten it up and submit it to your supervisor.

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 .

You Might Also Like:

38 Comments

Thank you very much. This page is an eye opener and easy to comprehend.

This is awesome!

I wish I come across GradCoach earlier enough.

But all the same I’ll make use of this opportunity to the fullest.

Thank you for this good job.

Keep it up!

You’re welcome, Yinka. Thank you for the kind words. All the best writing your literature review.

Thank you for a very useful literature review session. Although I am doing most of the steps…it being my first masters an Mphil is a self study and one not sure you are on the right track. I have an amazing supervisor but one also knows they are super busy. So not wanting to bother on the minutae. Thank you.

You’re most welcome, Renee. Good luck with your literature review 🙂

This has been really helpful. Will make full use of it. 🙂

Thank you Gradcoach.

Really agreed. Admirable effort

thank you for this beautiful well explained recap.

Thank you so much for your guide of video and other instructions for the dissertation writing.

It is instrumental. It encouraged me to write a dissertation now.

Thank you the video was great – from someone that knows nothing thankyou

an amazing and very constructive way of presetting a topic, very useful, thanks for the effort,

It is timely

It is very good video of guidance for writing a research proposal and a dissertation. Since I have been watching and reading instructions, I have started my research proposal to write. I appreciate to Mr Jansen hugely.

I learn a lot from your videos. Very comprehensive and detailed.

Thank you for sharing your knowledge. As a research student, you learn better with your learning tips in research

I was really stuck in reading and gathering information but after watching these things are cleared thanks, it is so helpful.

Really helpful, Thank you for the effort in showing such information

This is super helpful thank you very much.

Thank you for this whole literature writing review.You have simplified the process.

I’m so glad I found GradCoach. Excellent information, Clear explanation, and Easy to follow, Many thanks Derek!

You’re welcome, Maithe. Good luck writing your literature review 🙂

Thank you Coach, you have greatly enriched and improved my knowledge

Great piece, so enriching and it is going to help me a great lot in my project and thesis, thanks so much

This is THE BEST site for ANYONE doing a masters or doctorate! Thank you for the sound advice and templates. You rock!

Thanks, Stephanie 🙂

This is mind blowing, the detailed explanation and simplicity is perfect.

I am doing two papers on my final year thesis, and I must stay I feel very confident to face both headlong after reading this article.

thank you so much.

if anyone is to get a paper done on time and in the best way possible, GRADCOACH is certainly the go to area!

This is very good video which is well explained with detailed explanation

Thank you excellent piece of work and great mentoring

Thanks, it was useful

Thank you very much. the video and the information were very helpful.

Good morning scholar. I’m delighted coming to know you even before the commencement of my dissertation which hopefully is expected in not more than six months from now. I would love to engage my study under your guidance from the beginning to the end. I love to know how to do good job

Thank you so much Derek for such useful information on writing up a good literature review. I am at a stage where I need to start writing my one. My proposal was accepted late last year but I honestly did not know where to start

Like the name of your YouTube implies you are GRAD (great,resource person, about dissertation). In short you are smart enough in coaching research work.

This is a very well thought out webpage. Very informative and a great read.

Very timely.

I appreciate.

Very comprehensive and eye opener for me as beginner in postgraduate study. Well explained and easy to understand. Appreciate and good reference in guiding me in my research journey. Thank you

Thank you. I requested to download the free literature review template, however, your website wouldn’t allow me to complete the request or complete a download. May I request that you email me the free template? Thank you.

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

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

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

• Print Friendly

News alert: UC Berkeley has announced its next university librarian

Secondary menu

• Log in to your Library account
• Hours and Maps
• Connect from Off Campus
• UC Berkeley Home

Search form

Conducting a literature review: why do a literature review, why do a literature review.

• How To Find "The Literature"
• Found it -- Now What?

Besides the obvious reason for students -- because it is assigned! -- a literature review helps you explore the research that has come before you, to see how your research question has (or has not) already been addressed.

You identify:

• core research in the field
• experts in the subject area
• methodology you may want to use (or avoid)
• gaps in knowledge -- or where your research would fit in

It Also Helps You:

• Publish and share your findings
• Justify requests for grants and other funding
• Identify best practices to inform practice
• Set wider context for a program evaluation
• Compile information to support community organizing

Great brief overview, from NCSU

Want To Know More?

• Next: How To Find "The Literature" >>
• Last Updated: Apr 25, 2024 1:10 PM
• URL: https://guides.lib.berkeley.edu/litreview

Reference management. Clean and simple.

How to write a literature review in 6 steps

What is a literature review?

How to write a literature review, 1. determine the purpose of your literature review, 2. do an extensive search, 3. evaluate and select literature, 4. analyze the literature, 5. plan the structure of your literature review, 6. write your literature review, other resources to help you write a successful literature review, frequently asked questions about writing a literature review, related articles.

A literature review is an assessment of the sources in a chosen topic of research.

A good literature review does not just summarize sources. It analyzes the state of the field on a given topic and creates a scholarly foundation for you to make your own intervention. It demonstrates to your readers how your research fits within a larger field of study.

In a thesis, a literature review is part of the introduction, but it can also be a separate section. In research papers, a literature review may have its own section or it may be integrated into the introduction, depending on the field.

➡️ Our guide on what is a literature review covers additional basics about literature reviews.

• Identify the main purpose of the literature review.
• Do extensive research.
• Evaluate and select relevant sources.
• Analyze the sources.
• Plan a structure.
• Write the review.

In this section, we review each step of the process of creating a literature review.

In the first step, make sure you know specifically what the assignment is and what form your literature review should take. Read your assignment carefully and seek clarification from your professor or instructor if needed. You should be able to answer the following questions:

• How many sources do I need to include?
• What types of sources should I review?
• Should I evaluate the sources?
• Should I summarize, synthesize or critique sources?
• Do I need to provide any definitions or background information?

In addition to that, be aware that the narrower your topic, the easier it will be to limit the number of sources you need to read in order to get a good overview of the topic.

Now you need to find out what has been written on the topic and search for literature related to your research topic. Make sure to select appropriate source material, which means using academic or scholarly sources , including books, reports, journal articles , government documents and web resources.

➡️ If you’re unsure about how to tell if a source is scholarly, take a look at our guide on how to identify a scholarly source .

Come up with a list of relevant keywords and then start your search with your institution's library catalog, and extend it to other useful databases and academic search engines like:

• Google Scholar
• Science.gov

➡️ Our guide on how to collect data for your thesis might be helpful at this stage of your research as well as the top list of academic search engines .

Once you find a useful article, check out the reference list. It should provide you with even more relevant sources. Also, keep a note of the:

• authors' names
• page numbers

Keeping track of the bibliographic information for each source will save you time when you’re ready to create citations. You could also use a reference manager like Paperpile to automatically save, manage, and cite your references.

Read the literature. You will most likely not be able to read absolutely everything that is out there on the topic. Therefore, read the abstract first to determine whether the rest of the source is worth your time. If the source is relevant for your topic:

• Read it critically.
• Look for the main arguments.
• Take notes as you read.
• Organize your notes using a table, mind map, or other technique.

Now you are ready to analyze the literature you have gathered. While your are working on your analysis, you should ask the following questions:

• What are the key terms, concepts and problems addressed by the author?
• How is this source relevant for my specific topic?
• How is the article structured? What are the major trends and findings?
• What are the conclusions of the study?
• How are the results presented? Is the source credible?
• When comparing different sources, how do they relate to each other? What are the similarities, what are the differences?
• Does the study help me understand the topic better?
• Are there any gaps in the research that need to be filled? How can I further my research as a result of the review?

Tip: Decide on the structure of your literature review before you start writing.

There are various ways to organize your literature review:

• Chronological method : Writing in the chronological method means you are presenting the materials according to when they were published. Follow this approach only if a clear path of research can be identified.
• Thematic review : A thematic review of literature is organized around a topic or issue, rather than the progression of time.
• Publication-based : You can order your sources by publication, if the way you present the order of your sources demonstrates a more important trend. This is the case when a progression revealed from study to study and the practices of researchers have changed and adapted due to the new revelations.
• Methodological approach : A methodological approach focuses on the methods used by the researcher. If you have used sources from different disciplines that use a variety of research methods, you might want to compare the results in light of the different methods and discuss how the topic has been approached from different sides.

Regardless of the structure you chose, a review should always include the following three sections:

• An introduction, which should give the reader an outline of why you are writing the review and explain the relevance of the topic.
• A body, which divides your literature review into different sections. Write in well-structured paragraphs, use transitions and topic sentences and critically analyze each source for how it contributes to the themes you are researching.
• A conclusion , which summarizes the key findings, the main agreements and disagreements in the literature, your overall perspective, and any gaps or areas for further research.

➡️ If your literature review is part of a longer paper, visit our guide on what is a research paper for additional tips.

➡️ UNC writing center: Literature reviews

➡️ How to write a literature review in 3 steps

➡️ How to write a literature review in 30 minutes or less

The goal of a literature review is to asses the state of the field on a given topic in preparation for making an intervention.

A literature review should have its own independent section. You should indicate clearly in the table of contents where it can be found, and address this section as “Literature Review.”

There is no set amount of words for a literature review; the length depends on the research. If you are working with a large amount of sources, then it will be long. If your paper does not depend entirely on references, then it will be short.

Most research papers include a literature review. By assessing the available sources in your field of research, you will be able to make a more confident argument about the topic.

Literature reviews are most commonly found in theses and dissertations. However, you find them in research papers as well.

In order to help minimize spread of the coronavirus and protect our campus community, Cowles Library is adjusting our services, hours, and building access. Read more...

• Research, Study, Learning
• Archives & Special Collections

• Cowles Library
• Find Journal Articles
• Find Articles in Related Disciplines
• Find Streaming Video
• Conducting a Literature Review
• Organizations, Associations, Societies
• For Faculty

What is a Literature Review?

Description.

A literature review, also called a review article or review of literature, surveys the existing research on a topic. The term "literature" in this context refers to published research or scholarship in a particular discipline, rather than "fiction" (like American Literature) or an individual work of literature. In general, literature reviews are most common in the sciences and social sciences.

Literature reviews may be written as standalone works, or as part of a scholarly article or research paper. In either case, the purpose of the review is to summarize and synthesize the key scholarly work that has already been done on the topic at hand. The literature review may also include some analysis and interpretation. A literature review is  not  a summary of every piece of scholarly research on a topic.

Why are literature reviews useful?

Literature reviews can be very helpful for newer researchers or those unfamiliar with a field by synthesizing the existing research on a given topic, providing the reader with connections and relationships among previous scholarship. Reviews can also be useful to veteran researchers by identifying potentials gaps in the research or steering future research questions toward unexplored areas. If a literature review is part of a scholarly article, it should include an explanation of how the current article adds to the conversation. (From: https://researchguides.drake.edu/englit/criticism)

How is a literature review different from a research article?

Research articles: "are empirical articles that describe one or several related studies on a specific, quantitative, testable research question....they are typically organized into four text sections: Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion." Source: https://psych.uw.edu/storage/writing_center/litrev.pdf)

Steps for Writing a Literature Review

1. Identify and define the topic that you will be reviewing.

The topic, which is commonly a research question (or problem) of some kind, needs to be identified and defined as clearly as possible.  You need to have an idea of what you will be reviewing in order to effectively search for references and to write a coherent summary of the research on it.  At this stage it can be helpful to write down a description of the research question, area, or topic that you will be reviewing, as well as to identify any keywords that you will be using to search for relevant research.

2. Conduct a Literature Search

Use a range of keywords to search databases such as PsycINFO and any others that may contain relevant articles.  You should focus on peer-reviewed, scholarly articles . In SuperSearch and most databases, you may find it helpful to select the Advanced Search mode and include "literature review" or "review of the literature" in addition to your other search terms.  Published books may also be helpful, but keep in mind that peer-reviewed articles are widely considered to be the “gold standard” of scientific research.  Read through titles and abstracts, select and obtain articles (that is, download, copy, or print them out), and save your searches as needed. Most of the databases you will need are linked to from the Cowles Library Psychology Research guide .

3. Read through the research that you have found and take notes.

Absorb as much information as you can.  Read through the articles and books that you have found, and as you do, take notes.  The notes should include anything that will be helpful in advancing your own thinking about the topic and in helping you write the literature review (such as key points, ideas, or even page numbers that index key information).  Some references may turn out to be more helpful than others; you may notice patterns or striking contrasts between different sources; and some sources may refer to yet other sources of potential interest.  This is often the most time-consuming part of the review process.  However, it is also where you get to learn about the topic in great detail. You may want to use a Citation Manager to help you keep track of the citations you have found. 

4. Organize your notes and thoughts; create an outline.

At this stage, you are close to writing the review itself.  However, it is often helpful to first reflect on all the reading that you have done.  What patterns stand out?  Do the different sources converge on a consensus?  Or not?  What unresolved questions still remain?  You should look over your notes (it may also be helpful to reorganize them), and as you do, to think about how you will present this research in your literature review.  Are you going to summarize or critically evaluate?  Are you going to use a chronological or other type of organizational structure?  It can also be helpful to create an outline of how your literature review will be structured.

5. Write the literature review itself and edit and revise as needed.

The final stage involves writing.  When writing, keep in mind that literature reviews are generally characterized by a  summary style  in which prior research is described sufficiently to explain critical findings but does not include a high level of detail (if readers want to learn about all the specific details of a study, then they can look up the references that you cite and read the original articles themselves).  However, the degree of emphasis that is given to individual studies may vary (more or less detail may be warranted depending on how critical or unique a given study was).   After you have written a first draft, you should read it carefully and then edit and revise as needed.  You may need to repeat this process more than once.  It may be helpful to have another person read through your draft(s) and provide feedback.

6. Incorporate the literature review into your research paper draft. (note: this step is only if you are using the literature review to write a research paper. Many times the literature review is an end unto itself).

After the literature review is complete, you should incorporate it into your research paper (if you are writing the review as one component of a larger paper).  Depending on the stage at which your paper is at, this may involve merging your literature review into a partially complete Introduction section, writing the rest of the paper around the literature review, or other processes.

These steps were taken from: https://psychology.ucsd.edu/undergraduate-program/undergraduate-resources/academic-writing-resources/writing-research-papers/writing-lit-review.html#6.-Incorporate-the-literature-r

• << Previous: Find Streaming Video
• Next: Organizations, Associations, Societies >>
• Last Updated: Feb 29, 2024 4:09 PM
• URL: https://researchguides.drake.edu/psychology

• 2507 University Avenue
• Des Moines, IA 50311
• (515) 271-2111

Trouble finding something? Try searching , or check out the Get Help page.

Systematic Reviews & Literature Reviews

Evidence synthesis: part 1.

This blog post is the first in a series exploring Evidence Synthesis . We’re going to start by looking at two types of evidence synthesis: literature reviews and systemic reviews . To help me with this topic I looked at a number of research guides from other institutions, e.g., Cornell University Libraries.

The Key Differences Between a Literature Review and a Systematic Review

Overall, while both literature reviews and systematic reviews involve reviewing existing research literature, systematic reviews adhere to more rigorous and transparent methods to minimize bias and provide robust evidence to inform decision-making in education and other fields. If you are interested in learning about other evidence synthesis this decision tree created by Cornell Libraries (Robinson, n.d.) is a nice visual introduction.

Along with exploring evidence synthesis I am also interested in generative A.I.   I want to be transparent about how I used A.I. to create the table above. I fed this prompt into ChatGPT:

“ List the differences between a literature review and a systemic review for a graduate student of education “

I wanted to see what it would produce. I reformatted the list into a table so that it would be easier to compare and contrast these two reviews much like the one created by Cornell University Libraries (Kibbee, 2024). I think ChatGPT did a pretty good job. I did have to do quite a bit of editing, and make sure that what was created matched what I already knew. There are things ChatGPT left out, for example time frames, and how many people are needed for a systemic review, but we can revisit that in a later post.

Kibbee, M. (2024, April 10). Libguides: A guide to evidence synthesis: Cornell University Library Evidence Synthesis Service. Cornell University Library. https://guides.library.cornell.edu/evidence-synthesis/intro

• Blog Archive 2009-2018
• Library Hours
• Library Salons
• Library Spaces
• Library Workshops
• Reference Desk Questions

Subscribe to the Bank Street Library Blog

Advertisement

Can robots recover a service using interactional justice as employees do? A literature review-based assessment

• Review article
• Published: 12 February 2023
• Volume 17 , pages 315–357, ( 2023 )

Cite this article

• Mathieu Lajante   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-1979-5785 1 ,
• David Remisch 1 &
• Nikita Dorofeev 1  

2865 Accesses

5 Citations

Explore all metrics

Interactional justice (e.g., empathy) plays a crucial role in service recovery. It relies on human social skills that would prevent it from automation. However, several considerations challenge this view. Interactional justice is not always necessary to recover service, and progress in social robotics enables service robots to handle social interactions. This paper reviews service recovery and social robotics literature and addresses whether service robots can use interactional justice as frontline employees do during service recovery. Results show service robots can replicate interactional justice norms, although with some considerations. Accordingly, we propose a research agenda for future studies.

Similar content being viewed by others

Care Workers’ Readiness for Robotization: Identifying Psychological and Socio-Demographic Determinants

Exploring robot service quality priorities for different levels of intimacy with service

The Social Triad Model: Considering the Deployer in a Novel Approach to Trust in Human–Robot Interaction

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

1 Introduction

Service failure occurs when a service provider does not meet customer expectations (Lin 2006 ). Anger—the most prominent emotion after a service failure—strongly influences customers' evaluation of the firm (Valentini et al. 2020 ). Therefore, frontlines employees (FLEs) must re-establish customer satisfaction through service recovery procedures (Michel et al. 2009 ). Service research views customers' satisfaction with service recovery as a function of distributive, procedural, and interactional justice (IJ) (Krishna et al. 2011 ). IJ would play a vital part in service recovery as it provides customers with fair treatment during service recovery and redistributes intangible resources such as self-esteem to customers through empathy (Smith et al. 1999 ). However, FLEs may not be the only ones to handle service recovery through IJ soon. A shift toward automation is significantly influencing service encounters (Huang and Rust 2018 ), and the COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in a sharp demand increase in service robots (ServBots) to replace FLEs (Global Robotics Industry 2021 ).

ServBots are  system-based autonomous interfaces that communicate and deliver customer service  in various contexts (Wirtz et al. 2018 ). ServBots can handle functional operations such as carrying luggage (Christou et al. 2020 ) and engage in social interactions with customers through artificial empathy (Pozharliev et al. 2021 ). Customers perceive ServBots as convenient (Amelia et al. 2021 ), efficient and productive (Xu et al. 2020 ), but also as emotionally limited (Pillai and Sivathanu 2020 ). ServBots' emotional skills would be too narrow and not genuine (Huang and Rust 2018 ), leading to customers' discomfort (Davenport et al. 2020 ). However, a recent study showed that Servbots could recover a service via interactional justice norms such as sincere apology (Choi et al. 2021 ), and whether ServBots will effectively provide emotional and social services at a level humans can  (Wirtz et al. 2018 ) is still under debate. This paper aims to contribute to it and focuses on the ServBots' capacity to use IJ norms during service recovery as FLEs do.

Service researchers expressed concerns about using ServBots in emotionally driven service encounters (Davenport et al. 2020 ). However, considerations about the emotional dynamic following a service failure suggest that ServBots could handle service recovery. Service failure elicits customer anger, which can arouse FLEs' facial mimicking of anger due to emotional contagion (Dallimore et al. 2007 ). FLEs must regulate their emotions through emotional labor to display  normative  IJ behaviors (Liu et al. 2019 ), which can be emotionally exhausting and interfere with FLEs' ability to process the customer's complaint and respond efficiently (Smith and Hart 1994 ). Indeed, angry customers expect instrumental (i.e., solution-oriented) rather than emotional (i.e., empathy-oriented) support after a service failure (Menon and Dubé 2007 ). In contrast, ServBots are not sensitive to emotional contagion and can show complementary emotions instead of mimicking angry facial expressions. They can replicate the standardized display of IJ behaviors, and their analytic skills enable them to provide customers with instrumental support.

Progress in social robotics is filling the gap between humans' and robots' social skills (Kerruish 2021 ). A closer look at the emotional dynamic during service recovery opens new perspectives for ServBots. But can ServBots recover a service using IJ as FLEs do? This paper relies on a literature review-based assessment to answer this question. The paper is structured as follows. Section  2 presents the definition of the key concepts of the research. Section  3 describes the method and the results of a systematic review to identify the norms and boundaries of IJ during service recovery. Section  4 answers our research question by comparing the IJ's norms and boundaries identified through the systematic review to the last advances in social robotics. Finally, Sect.  5 discusses the pitfalls of AI-based emotion detection algorithms embedded in ServBots, and future research directions.

2 Theoretical background

2.1 service failure and the role of ij during service recovery on customers' emotions.

Service failure occurs when a service provider does not meet customer expectations regarding service production or delivery or when customers appraise a service interaction as unsatisfactory (Lin 2006 ). Anger and irritation are the most prominent emotions after a service failure (Harrison‐Walker 2012 ) and influence customers' satisfaction (Valentini et al. 2020 ) and coping strategy (Balaji et al. 2017 ). Customers' coping strategies depend on service failure severity (Sengupta et al. 2015 ). Customers coping with low service failure tend to rely on emotion-based strategies such as positive thinking and avoidance (Sengupta et al. 2015 ). They are also likely to suppress their negative emotions temporarily, opting to use retaliatory behaviors (e.g., negative WOM) (Balaji et al. 2017 ). In contrast, customers coping with high service failure rely on problem-solving such as action coping (Sengupta et al. 2015 ). Customers' anger increases the intentions to complain face-to-face (Luo & Mattila 2020 ) and to spread negative WOM while decreasing re-patronage and reconciliation intentions (Harrison-Walker 2019 ).

Service recovery refers to the integrative actions a company takes to re-establish customer satisfaction and loyalty after a service failure (Michel et al. 2009 , p. 267). It relies on the outcome dimension ("what is done") and the process dimension ("how it is done") (Dong et al. 2008 ). Service recovery comprises seven steps (acknowledgment, empathy, apology, ownership, the fix, assurance, and compensation; Krishna et al. 2011 ), mainly focused on the recovery phase and justice perception—an evaluative judgment about the fairness of customers' treatment by FLEs (DeWitt et al. 2008 ; Van Vaerenbergh et al. 2019 ). Justice theory relies on three components: (1) distributive justice (i.e., the tangible outcome of service recovery), (2) procedural justice (i.e., the procedure to conduct the recovery), and (3) IJ (i.e., how a customer is treated during service recovery) (Krishna et al. 2011 ). The three components impact customer service recovery satisfaction (Ozgen & Kurt 2012 ). However, researchers praise the vital role of IJ (Krishna et al. 2011 ).

IJ is a focus area because of the impact of customers' emotions on service recovery efforts evaluations (Gelbrich 2010 ; Salagrama et al. 2021 ). Customers are emotionally invested in service recovery (Tektas 2017; Wen and Chi 2013 ), and IJ provides customers with fair treatment during the complaint-handling process (e.g., politeness, courtesy, apology) and redistributes intangible resources such as self-esteem and a sense of control through empathy (Smith et al. 1999 ). FLEs' empathy enhances service quality and satisfaction (Wieseke et al. 2012 ), service delivery (Umasuthan et al. 2017 ), and service evaluation (Min et al. 2015 ). For instance, FLEs with high emotional skills can leave a lasting impression and generate satisfaction after the service recovery (Fernandes et al. 2018 ). A positive appraisal of the service recovery process elicits positive emotions, further increasing customer satisfaction, trust, and loyalty (Valentini et al. 2020 ). In contrast, a negative appraisal of service recovery indicates customers' negative emotions, such as frustration and anger, which impede their satisfaction (Wen and Chi 2013 ).

Because of their social and empathic skills, FLEs would efficiently display IJ norms and behaviors during service recovery. Nevertheless, IJ norms and behaviors such as empathy should not be confused with the psychophysiological process of feeling and sharing customers' emotions—a non-imitable, specific process of human nervous system functioning. Instead, IJ is a normative response that results from emotional labor—the FLEs' effort to regulate their private emotions to display normative empathy by the company's rules and guidelines (Wharton 2009 ). Therefore, standardized IJ norms and behaviors could be replicable without the psychophysiological capacity to feel and share customers' emotions. Such opportunities are supported by the rapid shift toward automating complex processes that significantly influence customer–firm service interaction (Huang and Rust 2018 ). The Covid-19 pandemic has also challenged firms to provide high-quality services amid significant social barriers (Ozuem et al. 2021 ). Therefore, ServBots could soon replace FLEs during service recovery (Romero and Lado 2021 ).

2.2 The rise of service robots at the organizational frontline

The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in a sharp demand increase for ServBots that reduce human contact (Global Robotics Industry 2021 ). ServBots are increasingly incorporated in the new service triad—FLEs, customers, and ServBots (Odekerken-Schröder et al. 2021 ). ServBots refer to system-based autonomous and adaptable interfaces that interact, communicate, and deliver service to an organization's customers (Wirtz et al. 2018 , p. 909). Three fundamental elements characterize them: sensors to understand their surrounding through imitation and association, processors to analyze the collected data and make decisions, and actuators to act in the real world (Devillers 2017 ). ServBots can take different shapes (e.g., mechanoids, chatbots, humanoids, androids) and rely on varying levels of intelligence and autonomy (e.g., pre-programmed strategy vs. automation autonomy; Roberts et al. 2020 ). The marketing and service research literature—and most of the commercial applications currently available—refer to ServBots as programmable, humanoid social robots (e.g., ARI, Pepper, TIAGo).

The combination of humanoid shapes with social intelligence algorithms and communication protocols (Zlotowski et al. 2015 ) allows ServBots to create the appearance of autonomy and exhibit social skills during customer-ServBot interactions (Forgas-Coll et al. 2022 ). ServBots can use physical features such as gaze or gestures to express and perceive customers' emotions to learn from and communicate with them (Søraa et al. 2021 ). Therefore, ServBots are applied social robots capable of producing and delivering services to customers while engaging emotionally and interacting socially with them (Van Doorn et al. 2017 ). According to the well-cited AI intelligence framework introduced by Huang and Rust ( 2021 ), ServBots integrate three types of intelligence. First, mechanical AI allows ServBots to perform routine tasks. Then, thinking AI allows ServBots to develop analytical and intuitive skills. Finally, feeling AI allows ServBots to identify and understand customers' emotions to respond empathically (Scheper et al. 2022 ).

Service research examines ServBots' implementation in various service settings (see Table 1 ). ServBots interact with customers to share information (Schepers and Streukens 2022 ), book services (Pillai and Sivathanu 2020 ), facilitate the check-in process at a hotel (Fan et al. 2020 ), and handle functional operations such as carrying luggage (Christou et al. 2020 ) and bringing food to a table (Tuomi et al. 2021 ). ServBots also have social skills to engage in entertaining interactions with customers by demonstrating empathy (Pozharliev et al. 2021 ), interest (Choi et al. 2020 ), assurance, and reliability (Chiang and Trimi 2020 ). ServBots can also detect customers' emotions and work with FLEs to satisfy customers' needs (Čaić et al. 2018 ). Customers' perceptions, acceptance, and intentions toward ServBots are consistent throughout the literature. On the one hand, customers perceive ServBots as convenient and flexible (Amelia et al. 2021 ), reliable (Belanche et al. 2020 ), socially entertaining (Choi et al. 2020 ), efficient and productive (Xu et al. 2020 ), and useful (Cha 2020 ). On the other hand, customers perceive ServBots as emotionally limited (Pillai and Sivathanu 2020 ), unsecured (Flavian et al. 2021 ), apathetic (De Kervenoal et al. 2020 ), artificial (Shin and Jeong 2020 ), and antisocial (Christou et al. 2020 ).

Most service studies rely on surveys and scenarios where customers did not interact with ServBots. Therefore, customers' attitudes and intentions relate more to their beliefs, while actual experiences with ServBots could lead to different results. For instance, a systematic review investigating the social acceptance of robots showed that participants have more positive attitudes (67.7% vs. 18.2%) when exposed to actual robots performing tasks rather than hypothetical robots (Savela et al. 2018 ). Nevertheless, no field study has investigated how ServBots handle emotional encounters and how customers appraise ServBots' emotional displays. Besides, long-term studies in a real-world setting reveal critical challenges when introducing ServBots at the organizational frontline (Pinillos et al. 2016 ). For instance, providing customers with clear instructions to operate the ServBots is critical (Severinson-Eklundh et al. 2003 ). Other studies showed the importance of more interactive dialogs and improved capacity to identify repeated customers (Gockley et al. 2005 ) and to improve ServBots' perceptual abilities to foster rich social interaction and engage sporadic customers (Leite et al. 2013a , b ).

2.3 Aims and goals of the present paper

The Covid-19 pandemic and the companies' need for standardization and scale economy foster the implementation of ServBots at the organizational frontline and the replacement of FLEs (Global Robotics Industry 2021 ). Moreover, progress in social robotics increasingly fills the gap between FLEs' and Servbots' emotional skills (Kerruish 2021 ). During service recovery, distributive and procedural justice obey standardized companies' policies that ServBots can replicate as efficiently as FLEs. But  whether ServBots will effectively provide emotional and social services at a level humans can  (Wirtz et al. 2018 ) is still under debate. The role of customers' emotions in service recovery appraisal requires emotionally intelligent FLEs to identify, understand and respond to the customers' emotions (Kozub et al. 2013 ). High-order cognitive processes such as empathy through IJ would make ServBots irrelevant for handling emotionally driving service recovery encounters while suitable for mechanical and analytical tasks (Huang and Rust 2018 ; Davenport et al. 2020 ; Wirtz et al. 2018 ). However, a few recent studies examined customers' perception of ServBots causing a service failure (e.g., Belanche et al. 2020 ; Fan et al. 2020 ) or ServBots handling service recovery (Choi et al. 2021 ) and showed that ServBots could use IJ norms during service recovery.

In addition, a closer look at the emotional dynamic during service recovery following a service failure allows us to ponderer the importance of FLEs' empathy for displaying normative IJ. Service failure elicits customer anger, which arouses FLEs' facial mimicking of anger due to emotional contagion (Dallimore et al. 2007 ). FLEs must regulate their emotions through emotional labor to display  normative  IJ behaviors (Liu et al. 2019 ), which can be emotionally exhausting and interfere with FLEs' ability to process the customer's complaint and respond efficiently (Smith and Hart 1994 ). Indeed, angry customers expect instrumental (i.e., solution-oriented response) rather than emotional (i.e., empathy-oriented response) support after a service failure (Menon and Dubé 2007 ). In contrast, ServBots are not sensitive to emotional contagion and can show complementary emotions instead of mimicking angry facial expressions. They can replicate the standardized display of IJ behaviors, and their analytic skills (Huang and Rust 2018 ) enable them to provide customers with instrumental support.

Drawing on justice theory (Lin et al. 2011 ), service failure/recovery theory (Van Vaerenbergh et al. 2019 ), emotional labor theory (Liu et al. 2019 ), and social robotics literature, our paper aims to determine whether ServBots can use IJ during the service recovery process as FLEs do. Our goals are to (1) identify the norms and boundaries of IJ during service recovery, (2) compare those IJ's norms and boundaries to current advances in social robotics, and (3) set the boundaries of ServBots' empathic skills at the service encounter. To do so, we first systematically review 20 years of empirical research on IJ in service recovery to identify the IJ's norms and boundaries (Sect.  3 ). Second, we answer our research question by comparing IJ's norms and boundaries with the review of ten years of empirical research on social robotics, artificial empathy, and emotion in human–computer interactions (Sect.  4 ). Finally, we discuss the pros and cons of ServBots handling service recovery and future research agenda (Sect.  5 ).

3 Identifying the norms and boundaries of interactional justice in service recovery

This section reports the methodology of the systematic literature review we performed to identify the norms and boundaries of IJ during service recovery. We took several steps to ensure our review process was replicable and transparent by following the process published recently in the Journal of Business Research (Kähkönen et al. 2021 ).

3.1 Search protocol

3.1.1 formulation of the research questions.

The research questions were formulated through dialogue between the authors and other academic experts. Based on this question formulation process, the research questions in this paper are (1) "What are the FLEs' IJ norms during service recovery?" and (2) "what are the boundaries of the FLEs' IJ norms during service recovery?".

3.1.2 Inclusion and exclusion criteria

Each included research article met our inclusion criteria, namely: (1) empirical research providing evidence on service recovery, (2) including measures or manipulations of IJe, (3) including an employee or customer perspective on service recovery, (4) conducted within the context of work or an organizational context, (5) being peer-reviewed, (6) being available in English, and (7) located within the disciplines of business, management, and accounting. We searched for literature published in the past two decades, from 2000 to 2021. We excluded (1) non-empirical papers, (2) papers that represented only external stakeholders (e.g., citizens, suppliers, customers, shareholders, and regulators), (3) papers that did not include a service recovery, (4) papers that did not explicitly measure or manipulate IJe, and (5) papers outside of the service context. Papers were also excluded if it was unclear whether an employee perspective was included (e.g., experimental designs where the respondent's role was unclear).

3.1.3 Search strategy and selection process of relevant articles

We followed Hempel's structured literature review process ( 2020 ), which involves five stages (Fig.  1 ). Each step served to select relevant articles according to the pre-defined criteria. In the first stage, we searched the appropriate databases for literature published during the last two decades, during which most empirical research on service recovery has been conducted. To ensure a comprehensive search, we used two dominant databases in business, ProQuest and EBSCO. The search terms ("service recovery" OR "service failure" OR "service encounter" OR "customer complaint" OR "service incident" OR "customer failure" OR "customer recovery" OR "customer encounter" or "service complaint") AND ("interactional justice" OR empath* OR compassion* OR altruis* OR prosocial) AND ("quantitative") were used. The search strings were targeted at article titles, abstracts, and keywords. The first search produced 992 potentially relevant articles, a number reduced to 978 after removing duplicates.

Systematic literature review flowchart

In the second stage of the literature selection process, 978 articles were screened by title, keywords, and abstract. Nine hundred twenty-seven studies were excluded based on title, keywords, and abstract review because it turned out that they (1) were not empirical papers, (2) did not include measures or manipulations of IJ, (3) did not report identifiable service recovery process, or (4) were without an employee or customer perspective. In the third stage, 52 accepted papers were scanned, and articles that failed to meet the inclusion criteria were eliminated. In this stage, nine studies were excluded based on full-text review because papers did not include a customer or employee perspective on service recovery or because IJ was not measured or manipulated.

In the fourth stage and after the full-text examination, the number of relevant articles was reduced to 42. Our last stage of the selection process involved scanning the reference lists of the 42 accepted papers. The screening and selection of the articles were verified independently by two researchers to avoid possible selection bias.

3.2 Findings

3.2.1 the norms of ij in service recovery.

The study of IJ in service recovery relies on the data of at least 16,735 respondents, including 8925 customers, 708 FLEs, and 4177 students, collected through surveys over the last two decades. These studies have been carried out in countries on six continents and represent a wide range of service contexts. IJ definitions are consistent throughout the 42 papers we reviewed (see Table 2 ). Authors agree to define IJ as the fairness (e.g., Räikkönen et al. 2015 ), mannerisms (e.g., Wang et al. 2011 ), and quality (e.g., Wirtz and McColl-Kennedy 2010 ) of interpersonal treatment (e.g., Lin et al. 2011 ), communication (e.g., Chebat et al. 2005), or behavior (e.g., Aurier and Siadou-Martin 2007 ) during service recovery. Most reviewed studies found that IJ increases customers' satisfaction with service recovery (e.g., Hocutt et al. 2006 ; Jung and Seock 2017 ; Petzer et al. 2017 ; Räikkönen and Honkanen 2016 ; Tsao 2018 ; Radu et al. 2020 ). Especially, FLEs' mannerisms are the most satisfying for customers (Siu et al. 2013 ). IJ norms refer to professional obligations to address the customers' complaints and can be sorted out into six dimensions:

Politeness: courtesy, humility, sincerity, candor (e.g., Assefa 2014 );

Empathy: sensitivity, concern, friendliness, openness, help, care (e.g., Kuo et al. 2012);

Respect: fairness, honesty, dignity, righteousness, trustfulness (e.g., Wang et al. 2011 );

Apology: acceptance of blame (e.g., Lee et al. 2020a);

Explanation: reliable information, causal account, justification (e.g., Gohary et al. 2016 );

Interest: effort, endeavor, attention, listening (e.g., Ok et al. 2005 ).

It is worth mentioning that none of the reviewed studies investigated FLEs' IJ behaviors, such as empathy, as a psychophysiological reaction to angry customers in the service recovery and how it affects FLEs' emotional labor and normative responses through IJ. This blind spot in the literature confirms that, so far, the literature has treated IJ as a normative response (displays, wordings) through clear-cut dimensions to ease customers' negative emotions after a service failure (Valentini et al. 2020 ). Why would human emotional and empathic capacities be crucial if normative displays and standardized dimensions of IJ can address customers' emotions in service recovery? Although less standardized service encounters (e.g., health services, hospitality) could require a spontaneous display of compassion and care, the service contexts studied in the reviewed papers (e.g., retailing, banking) seem to accommodate more standard reactions. The standardization of IJ norms, in addition to progress in social robotics, shows that the challenge of using ServBots in emotionally-driven service encounters is more about customers' acceptance than technical considerations to reproduce normative IJ.

3.2.2 The boundaries of IJ in service recovery

Several studies confirmed that IJ increases customers' post-recovery positive emotions and decreases customers' post-recovery negative emotions (see Table 3 ). Results also show that customers' emotions mediate the effect of perceived IJ on satisfaction, loyalty, positive WOM, and intention to revisit and to co-create the service recovery (Cai and Qu 2018 ; Chebat and Slusarczyk 2005 ; Chen and Kim 2019 ; Gohary et al. 2016 ). However, the positive role of IJ on customers' emotions is not always confirmed. One study found that distributive and procedural justice, but not IJ, positively influence customers' emotions (Kuo and Wu 2012 ). Another study demonstrated that distributive and procedural justices explain more customers' emotions than IJ (Cai and Qu 2018 ).

Moreover, it is unclear whether IJ is the most or the least essential justice component to explain customers' satisfaction with the service recovery. Some studies found that IJ (especially empathy and courtesy) explains more customers' satisfaction with service recovery than procedural (e.g., responsiveness) and distributive (e.g., free meal) justice (Hocutt et al. 2006 ; Mohd-Any et al. 2019 ; Nadiri 2016 ). For instance, a study showed that IJ, but not distributive justice, significantly affects post-recovery overall satisfaction, indicating that interpersonal treatment plays a crucial role in recovering dissatisfying experiences (Ok et al. 2005 ). However, other studies found that distributive justice plays a more significant role than IJ in customers' satisfaction with service recovery, indicating the importance of tangible over intangible aspects (e.g., Yeoh et al. 2015 ; Radu et al. 2020 ; Räikkönen and Honkanen 2016 ). Finally, some studies found procedural justice exerted stronger effects on customers' satisfaction with service recovery than distributive justice and IJ (Lii and Lee 2012 ).

Findings of our systematic review show that service failure severity, customer characteristics, complementary effect with other justice components, and service contexts moderate the effect of IJ on customers' emotions and service recovery satisfaction:

Service failure severity. In the case of a severe service failure, IJ alone cannot overcome the negative effects of the service failure and elicit customers' positive emotions: distributive (e.g., monetary compensation) and procedural justice (e.g., prompt conflict resolution; Cheung and To 2017 ) are also required (Choi and Choi 2014 ). In the case of a less severe service failure, however, monetary compensation would not be necessary, as ensuring interactional and procedural justice would be enough to enhance customer affection (Choi and Choi 2014 ).

Customer characteristics. IJ elicits a stronger positive (negative) effect on customers' positive (negative) emotions on overall satisfaction for repeat customers than for first-time customers (Chen and Kim 2019 ).

Complementary effects with other justice components. A study showed that IJ complements distributive justice (Choi et al. 2016 ). When IJ is high, customers understand that firm is committed to taking responsibility for the service failure and are less likely to doubt the fairness of compensation (i.e., distributive justice). Distributive and procedural justice also correlate with IJ to elicit positive post-recovery customers' intentions (Gohary et al. 2016 ; Choi et al. 2016 ; Lin et al. 2011 ). For instance, a study on online shopping found that only distributive justice positively affects repurchase intention, and only IJ has a negative effect on negative WOM (Lin et al. 2011 ). IJ alone might not be enough to regain customers' choices in specific service contexts (Ortiz et al. 2017 ).

Service context. Online services entail less human contact, and customers would favor procedural justice (Jun and Seock 2017 ). Another study showed that IJ weakens the negative effect of service failure on customer loyalty in the context of online services. However, only high procedural justice in service recovery can elicit higher post-failure customer loyalty (Wang et al. 2011 ). Customers engaged in airline service encounters also seem to favor procedural and distributive justice because of the time constraints and the need for a concrete solution (Nikbin et al. 2015 ). IJ (e.g., apology and showing empathy) would be essential but not enough to achieve customer satisfaction with service recovery (Nikbin et al. 2015 ). However, other service contexts require more IJ, especially when the service outcome is uncertain or technical service production (Siehl et al. 1992 ). For instance, customers experiencing banking failures value IJ more (Maxham and Netemeyer 2002 ), probably because it would be more difficult for customers to appraise the fairness of the service recovery on procedural or distributive components (Seiders and Berry 1998 ). Another study showed that the effect of IJ on trust is more critical in the restaurant and banking contexts than in retailing and personal services, where only the interactions of procedural justice with IJ elicit greater customer loyalty (De Ruyter & Wetzel 2000). IJ could play a significant role in the hospitality industry, where interactions between FLEs and customers are frequent and prolonged (Tsao 2018 ).

4 ServBots' capacity to use IJ during service recovery: a comparison between the service literature norms with the social robotics literature

Traditional service encounters rely on FLEs, who are socially capable of establishing emotional connectedness through empathy with customers (Wieseke et al. 2012 ). After a service failure, FLEs develop efforts to recover the service prosocially through IJ (Valentini et al. 2020 ). They represent the firm to customers, deliver its promises, and enhance its reputation and image—the service encounter is the focal point in customer evaluation of the firm (Bettencourt and Brown 2003 ). However, the rise of AI applications at the organizational frontline challenges the traditional model of FLEs-based service encounters (Wirtz et al. 2018 ). ServBots will soon be part of the service interactions to replace FLEs for functional operations (Tuomi et al. 2021 ; Christou et al. 2020 ). What about interactional service operations? To answer our research question, we first discuss the boundaries of IJ during service recovery. Then, we compare the IJ norms identified through the systematic review with the review of empirical research in social robotics.

4.1 IJ boundaries can compensate for ServBots' limited social skills during service recovery

Several service researchers consider that ServBots are unable, and will probably not be able soon, to handle interactional operations in emotionally driven service encounters (Wirtz et al. 2018 ; Huang and Rust 2018 ; Davenport et al. 2020 ). Customers still have implicit preferences for FLEs (Akdim et al. 2021 ) because of humans' sincere and genuine interactions (Shin and Jeong 2020 ). However, we identified IJ boundaries that qualify the somewhat definitive judgment on the ServBots' capacity to handle emotionally driven service recovery. First, we found that IJ complements rather than substitutes procedural and distributive justice dimensions. Second, our results show IJ is not always the most significant dimension of justice to recover service. Four moderators explain the inconsistent effect of IJ during service recovery: service failure severity, customer characteristics, complementary effect with the other dimensions of justice, and service contexts. For instance, in a service recovery where time constraints and the need for a concrete solution are high, procedural and distributive justice—which can be programmed into Servbots—are more critical than IJ.

A third and final IJ boundary we identified through our systematic literature review challenge the opinion that empathy is critical to supporting customers in emotionally driven interactions and recovering service. FLEs' empathy toward customers is normalized and standardized through emotional labor. It does not refer to the psychophysiological process of feeling and sharing customers' emotions—a non-imitable, specific human nervous system functioning process. Accordingly, there are at least three reasons to curb the role of FLEs' empathy in emotionally-driven encounters like service recovery, which would lower the gap ServBots should fill in to compete with FLEs' empathic capacity:

Empathy is only one of the six dimensions of IJ (i.e., politeness, empathy, respect, apology, explanation, and interest), which is correlated to distributive and procedural justice. FLEs' empathy through IJ in service recovery appears to be a valuable yet standardized response that plays only a contributive role.

FLEs' empathy through IJ is not a spontaneous emotional response but an expected normative response. FLEs must regulate their automatic reactions through "emotional labor" to produce normative empathic displays when interacting with angry customers. ServBots can produce normative displays of IJ at a high level of consistency and stability throughout interactions (Choi et al. 2020 ; Belanche et al. 2020 ).

Anger is the most common emotion after a service failure, and angry customers seek utilitarian and solution-based support rather than emotional support (Menon and Dubé 2000 , 2007 ), while ServBots have excellent analytical skills (Huang and Rust 2018 ). Besides, no study tested the relevance of IJ during service recovery in response to angry customers.

4.2 ServBots can display similar normative IJ as FLEs do during service recovery

In the previous subsection, we showed that IJ boundaries could compensate for ServBots' limited social skills during service recovery. In other words, IJ is not always the most critical dimension of justice during service recovery. ServBots' social skills would be enough to handle service recovery through IJ, as FLEs do. However, there are still specific service recovery contexts where IJ norms such as empathy are essential. It is, therefore, necessary to discuss whether ServBots could replicate IJ norms as FLEs do. Recent studies showed that empathy could be learned and programmed for ServBots (Heyes 2018 ). For instance, artificial empathy can use motor mimicry to lead to emotional contagion and further into empathy and compassion, rendering natural empathy possible with current technology (Asada 2015 ). In this subsection, we show that ServBots can display IJ's six normative dimensions (see Table 4 ) as FLEs during service recovery by reviewing more than 30 papers published in social robotics in the last ten years.

Let us consider first the IJ dimensions of politeness, respect, apology, explanation, and interest. Several works showed that ServBots could appear courteous and engaging (IJ dimension: politeness ) through their capacity to dialogue and display identifiable human emotions (Kharub et al. 2021 ; Rincon et al. 2019 ). ServBots can deliver an empathic speech and voice (James et al. 2020 ), understand jokes (Fung et al. 2016 ), and display small social behaviors like nodding (Sakurai et al. 2020 ) to increase customers' perception of ServBots' social agency, sincerity, and engagement. Servbots can also appear honest and trustful (IJ dimension: respect ) through human-like features (Cominelli et al. 2021 ; Roesler et al. 2021 ), cute faces (Pinney et al. 2022 ), extroverted voice pitch (Niculescu et al. 2013 ), and small social behaviors (Sakurai et al. 2020 ). ServBots' capacity to display emotional expressions also increases customers' perception of trustfulness (Acosta-Mitjans et al. 2019 ).

ServBots are also able to accept blame (Kerruish 2021 ) (IJ dimension: apology ) and provide explanations, feedback, and information (Kerruish 2021 ; Leite et al. 2013a , b ), and recommend activities (Rincon et al. 2019 ) with high scores in social presence and sociability (Rossi et al. 2020 ) (IJ dimension: explanation ). Finally, ServBots can show helpfulness, attention, and listening skills (IJ dimension: interest ) through facial expressions (Pasternak et al. 2021 ), social behaviors (Rossi et al. 2020 ; Sakurai et al. 2020 ), empathic display (Bagheri et al. 2021 ; Kuhnlenz et al. 2013 ), and high social presence (Leite et al. 2014 ). These findings show that ServBots' emotional and social skills to handle interactions during service encounters go beyond customers' concerns and negative perceptions of ServBots, as reported in Table 1 . In the following paragraphs, we discuss ServBots' empathy more precisely, which is by far the most studied in social robotics literature (Asada 2015 ).

Service is interactivity, and customers must recognize ServBots as a social agent capable of free will, "feeling" emotions, and displaying empathic and supportive behaviors to accept and consider them. Artificial empathy is, therefore, a crucial topic in social robotics (Asada 2015 ). Our literature review shows that ServBots can identify customers' emotions (Pasternak et al. 2021 ; Rincon et al. 2019 ) and react emotionally to customers' actions (Kerruish 2021 ; Dumouchel 2017 ), facial expressions of emotions (Chumkamon et al. 2016 ; Bagheri et al. 2021 ; Burns et al. 2018 ), vocabulary (Fung et al. 2016 ), voice, and level of arousal (De Carolis et al. 2017 ). In turn, ServBots can manifest empathy to customers through an interface display (Kerruish et al. 2021 ), facial expressions of emotions (Konijn and Hoorn 2020 ; Menne and Schwab 2018 ; Pasternak et al. 2021 ), speech, and voice (James et al. 2020 ), small social movements like nodding (Sakurai et al. 2020 ), supportive behaviors (Leite et al. 2013a , b , 2014 ), cuteness (Dumouchel 2017 ), and friendliness (Niculescu et al. 2013 ).

ServBots' capacity to autonomously respond emotionally to diverse stimuli in real-time (Hieida et al. 2018 ), achieve emotional intelligence and learn new emotional patterns through machine learning (Chumkamon et al. 2016 ; Glaskin 2012 ) reinforce customers' perception of ServBots' empathic skills. Social robotic studies show that customers are satisfied with ServBots' empathic skills (Kwon et al. 2018 ). They perceive them as autonomous social agents (Kerruish 2021 ) and, in turn, empathize with ServBots (Hofree et al. 2014 ), increasing the sense of engagement and interpersonal interaction (Leite et al. 2013a , b ; Riddoch and Cross 2021 ). Several studies showed that ServBots could express their feelings, shame customers who mistreat them (Kerruish 2021 ), and elicit customers' empathy toward them (De Jong et al. 2021 ; Malinowska 2021 ; Mattiassi et al. 2021 ; Schmetkamp 2020 ).

Customers' perception of ServBots as social agents is well demonstrated in studies where customers are asked to mistreat ServBots. For instance, 50% of participants refused to comply with the research instructions to hit the ServBots with a mallet (Riddoch and Cross 2021 ). The other half of the participants who complied with the instructions felt very uncomfortable. When asked why they refused to hit the ServBot or felt uncomfortable doing it, participants answered that they felt an emotional connection with the ServBot that refrained from hurting it (Riddoch and Cross 2021 ). Customers also do not perceive a ServBot as a simple machine but as a social agent through emotional capacity and anthropomorphic features (Carlson et al. 2019 ). When witnessing the mistreatment of a ServBot versus a computer, customers showed significantly more empathy for the ServBot (Carlson et al. 2019 ).

5 Discussion

Our results show that ServBots could handle service recovery by displaying IJ norms and behaviors as FLEs do. However, implementing ServBots in emotionally-driven service encounters raises several questions that need to be addressed. The following discussion discusses the potential risks of misusing ServBots' empathy for customers' well-being and free will. Second, we discuss the theoretical and methodological issues about using AI-based facial expression detection algorithms heavily implemented in ServBots. Finally, several questions still need to be addressed before implementing ServBots in emotionally-driven service encounters, and we propose a research agenda for future studies.

5.1 The risks of misusing ServBots' empathy

The customers' capacity to empathize with ServBots is a solid argument for assuming that ServBots can handle emotionally-driven service encounters and provide customers with genuine interpersonal communication (Malinowska 2021 ; Mattiassi et al. 2021 ; Schmetkamp 2020 ). However, misuse of customers' empathy for ServBots could also present some risks that merit mentioning in our present study. Those risks are mainly associated with: safety, privacy, data security, liability, autonomy and independence, social connectedness and human interactions, objectification and infantilization, deception and anthropomorphizing, and social justice (Tan et al. 2021 ). Moreover, the commercial, self-interested nature of the relationship between ServBots and customers biases the ties and the profit motive of the companies could lead to abusive behavior. A ServBot interacting with a customer will be able to synchronize with the customers' gestures, emotions, and attitudes, a mechanism known to influence and direct others' behavior without their consent (Tisseron 2015 ).

Moreover, ServBots will have different information about the world than customers. For instance, a ServBot will not be able to identify the meaning of emotions from what it experiences itself, as a human does (i.e., physiological correlates of emotion), but by comparing it to patterns that have been stored in its software. The encyclopedic description of an apple does not replace the experience of eating this apple (Devillers 2017 ). However, decoding without sharing customers' affective and mental states could lead to egocentric behaviors reminiscent of psychopaths (Mullins-Nelson et al. 2006 ). The lack of empathy can result in significant social and relational disability. Psychopaths rely almost exclusively on the cognitive inputs of others at the expense of their emotional inputs. While they fail to share others' emotional and mental states, they are perfectly capable of understanding and taking advantage of them: this makes them very good at anticipating social and behavioral intentions. This ability to understand the mental and emotional states without sharing them translates into antisocial behaviors marked by disregard for others' well-being and lack of guilt, which forms the basis for socially manipulative behaviors (Zaki and Ochsner 2016 ).

Does implementation of ServBots in service encounters expose companies to a lack of empathy and, thus, to psychopathic organizational behavior? The question is worth asking. On the one hand, implementing ServBots will lead to a loss of human and physical interaction, resulting in an emotional disconnection from the customer. This emotional disconnection alters the company's ability to feel and share the emotional states of its customers and thwarts the development of compassionate feelings necessary for the development of customer-oriented behaviors, such as assistance. Moreover, the fact that customers share their emotional states with ServBots does not make the interaction more human if data processing is automated and standardized. On the other hand, digital transformation gives access to an impressive amount of data (big data) about customers. It dramatically increases the company's ability to understand customers' affective and mental states without increasing its ability to share them. Their habits, opinions, beliefs, behaviors, feelings, and intentions will be digitized, stored, and processed to develop predictive models and streamline the customer relationship (Søraa et al. 2021 ). At the risk of producing manipulative and antisocial behaviors solely focused on the company's interest (Lajante 2019a , b ).

5.2 The pitfalls of AI-based emotion detection algorithms

Affective computing is a general approach enabling ServBots to automatically identify customers' emotions (Landowska 2019 ). Affective computing uses algorithms that recognize emotions based on single- or multimodal human observation, such as body posture, behavioral patterns, sentiment analysis, physiological responses, and speech prosody (Landowska 2019 ). However, most of the papers we reviewed in social robotics use algorithms targeting customers' facial expressions. It is a psychophysiological approach: facial configurations serve as physiological correlates to investigate emotions' psychological processes (Lajante and Ladhari 2019 ; Lajante and Lux 2020 ). Interpreting those facial configurations as behavioral correlates of emotion requires a theoretical background. Most of ServBots' vision-based systems to recognize customers' facial expressions of emotion rely on the Facial Action Coding System (Ekman and Friesen 1978 ) and the basic emotion theory (Ekman 1999 ; Gunes and Hung 2016 ).

The Facial Action Coding System is a measurement protocol aiming to identify and code facial behaviors through the facial movement of facial muscles (Prince et al. 2017 ). The movement of muscles of the face is broken down into action units that make the identification and codification of facial behaviors easier. There are 27 action units in the face (Ekman and Friesen 1978 ), and each is assigned a numerical code. Facial Action Coding Algorithms use three-dimension modeling and classification methods that automatically recognize and analyze facial behaviors. First, it identifies, extracts and models the face (shape and appearance) (Prince et al. 2017 ). Then a classifier system detects action units from the virtual model of the face and computes scores of facial behaviors (Lewinski et al. 2014 ). The neural network supporting Facial Action Coding Algorithms is trained using a high-quality set of thousands of images. Moreover, a cut-off value is applied above, which only the detected facial behaviors are considered for further analysis (Lewinski et al. 2014 ). Although Facial Action Coding Algorithms offer a simple and affordable solution, some theoretical and methodological concerns might challenge ServBots' emotional detection validity and reliability and create awkward customer interactions.

Coding Algorithms detect and interpret customers' facial expressions of emotions through the lens of the Basic Emotion Theory, which states that emotions are distinct and brief states involving physiological, subjective, and expressive components that enable humans to respond in ways that are typically adaptive in relation to evolutionary significant problems (Keltner et al. 2019 , p. 133). This theory assumes that humans share five basic, innate, and culturally independent emotions—happiness, anger, disgust, fear, and sadness—plus the neutral emotion of surprise. These six basic emotions would produce prototypical facial behaviors (Barrett et al. 2019 ), signaling the individual's emotional state (Keltner et al. 2019 ). Therefore, differences in facial expression would determine the natural boundaries between types of emotion. However, several studies in psychology challenged the Basic Emotion Theory's assumptions (Barrett et al. 2019 ), which will undermine ServBots' emotion detection capacity.

First, Facial Action Coding Algorithms effectively classify stereotypical facial expressions: they are trained with static, prototypical pictures of standardized facial expressions in controlled settings (Yitzhak et al. 2017 ). However, everyday emotional expressions may be just the opposite: dynamic, varied, and subtle. There is not necessarily a one-to-one correspondence between the occurrence of emotion and a prototypical expression (Keltner et al. 2019 ). Instead, emotions are expressed in prototypical multimodal behavior patterns with striking variations (Barrett et al. 2019 ). Subtle facial expressions of emotions are not merely low-intensity prototypical expressions: they are alternative expressions (Yitzhak et al. 2017 ). Although expression classification works reasonably well for posed expressions, such as posed smiles, Facial Action Coding Algorithms' performance drops dramatically on spontaneous expressions elicited during natural conversations and day-to-day interactions (Gunes and Hung 2016 ).

Second, emotion would not be innate and limited to six basic categories but culturally learned and enriched during the social experience (Barrett 2017 ). Cultures vary greatly in their prioritization and understanding of emotion concepts, knowledge, and representations. So, culture will necessarily influence emotion perception in expression (Keltner et al. 2019 ). Then, how customers express emotions varies substantially across situations and people within a single situation. Unmeasured effects such as context must be considered before interpreting a scowling facial configuration. Moreover, customers express emotions in more ways than just facial muscle movements and rely on more than just single words or scenarios to make sense of emotional expressions (Keltner et al. 2019 ). Facial expressions of emotion are multimodal, dynamic patterns of behavior involving facial action, vocalization, bodily movement, gaze, gesture, head movements, touch, autonomic response, and even scent (Keltner et al. 2019 ). Only facial expressions cannot provide a complete picture of customers' emotional experiences.

Third, similar facial expressions can express more than one emotion category—they often communicate something other than an emotional state (Haidt and Keltner 1999 ). Facial expressions are correlated to emotional episodes, not caused by. Most of our facial expressions are correlated to processes other than emotion (e.g., being dazzled, feeling cold or hot, being hungry, being focused on a task) (Barrett et al. 2019 ). It is a recurrent issue in applied research using psychophysiology. Psychophysiology relies on physiological correlates to investigate psychological processes: there is no causal relationship between those observed physiological changes and a targeted psychological process. Moreover, related psychological processes to emotion can interfere with the production and the detection of facial expressions of emotions. For instance, there is a two-way link between facial expressions and emotion regulation (Gross 1999 ). Another example is that customers' facial expressions would be first prompted by customers' cognitive appraisal of an event rather than the expression of distinct emotions (Scherer and Grandjean 2008 ). The measurement error can be significant, but Facial Action Coding Algorithms provide a result regardless of uncertainty and usually do not provide confidence in the results (Landowska 2019 ).

Finally, several external sources of uncertainty could spoil the detection of customers' facial expressions of emotions through Facial Action Coding Algorithms and could be summed up as follows (Landowska 2014 ; Kolakowska et al. 2014 ):

Temporal unavailability of the observation channels of emotion symptoms;

Quality of the input channel measurements (video image, physiological signals, etc.);

Availability of relevant data in an input channel (from the perspective of observable symptoms of emotions);

Accuracy and granulation of outputs from algorithms for the automatic recognition of emotions (single and/or multi-channel);

Quality of labeling the data sets that are used for machine learning algorithms;

Simplifications resulting from the use of a certain model of emotion representation and errors introduced by mappings between the models;

A contradiction of emotional symptoms or intentional behavior of the observed person;

The impact of the context and the environment.

6 Research agenda

This paper showed that ServBots could be a viable option to replace FLEs and handle emotionally driven service encounters like service recovery. However, we also mentioned that, to date, no empirical study has investigated the antecedents and consequences of customers' acceptance and satisfaction with ServBots during service recovery. Research on ServBots in marketing and service is still in its infancy, but it is a promising research stream, and several questions need to be addressed. We especially identified five priority research directions for the future.

First, we showed that no study tested the effect of specific discrete emotions associated with service failure (e.g., anger vs. anxiety) on customers' expectations. However, negative emotions rely on different cognitive appraisals and produce different responses (Scherer and Moors 2019 ). Service research showed that customers' support needs vary depending on their emotions after a service failure: angry customers expect utilitarian support, whereas anxious customers expect emotional support. (Menon and Dube 2000 , 2007 ). It would imply that customers accept interacting with a ServBots during the service recovery if it can provide the same relevant solution as FLEs, no matter the intensity of the empathic display. Artificial empathy through IJ would be more acceptable than for anxious customers who value emotional and authentic empathy. The role of discrete emotions in customers' acceptance of ServBots has been studied in other service contexts. For instance, a recent study showed that embarrassing service encounters where customers feel ashamed and embarrassed lead to higher ServBots' acceptance (e.g., Pitardi et al. 2021 ). So, the emotion shared by customers could moderate ServBots' acceptance during service interactions.

Second, customers' ServBots acceptance might depend on how authentic or unauthentic ServBots' display of emotion and empathy through IJ appear. Our systematic literature showed that emotional contagion from FLEs to customers could explain the positive effect of authentic emotional display on customers' beliefs that FLEs have treated them fairly (Azab et al. 2018 ). FLEs' emotional labor is efficient if authentic (deep acting) but inefficient if unauthentic (surface acting), leading to customers' dissatisfaction with the service encounters (Liu et al. 2019 ). However, empathizing with angry customers who display aggressive behaviors is difficult. It can impair emotional labor authenticity and subsequent processes such as empathic concern, prosocial behaviors, and customer satisfaction (Dallimore et al. 2007 ). Conversely, ServBots do not need to regulate emotions to display normative empathy through emotional labor. Although artificial, ServBots' empathic display might be more stable and consistent over time, offering customers more assurance and relief during the service recovery (Choi et al. 2020 ). Therefore, studies comparing the effect of FLEs' versus ServBots' emotional labor (deep versus surface acting) on customers' perception of IJ norms, service recovery satisfaction, and behaviors would be worth considering.

Third, we compared FLEs directly to ServBots, assuming that ServBots would replace FLEs in the future. However, recent studies suggested that ServBots will work with FLEs rather than replace them (Paluch et al. 2021 ). This approach considers the service triad—customers, service robots, frontline employees—as a more likely future of ServBots at the organizational frontline (Odekerken-Schroder et al. 2021 ). However, it is still unclear how FLEs will accept working with ServBots and how customers will feel interacting with both FLEs and ServBots simultaneously (Xu et al. 2020 ). Recent studies show that FLEs and ServBots divide tasks according to their nature: ServBots would be responsible for operational tasks, while FLEs would be responsible for interactional tasks (Rancati and Maggioni 2022 ). However, the risk of FLEs' rejection exists and should be investigated in future studies. Similar to introducing new management tools to assist and control workers' performance in the organization, FLEs could perceive ServBots as a threat and consider boycotting, hijacking, or vandalizing them (Lux and Lajante 2017 ). Such adverse behaviors toward ServBots could eventually affect service quality and customer satisfaction.

Fourth, social robotics and service literature showed varying levels of technologies and ServBots' capacity to interact and display emotions and empathy. Although some ServBots can produce and deliver a high-quality service to customers, not all companies will have the resources to implement such sophisticated technologies. More simple applications of ServBots could appear like a company's strategy to cut costs (Belanche et al. 2020 ), putting customers at work. Indeed, some companies could decide to replace FLEs with ServBots and ask customers to co-produce and co-deliver the service by guiding and operating the ServBots as it already exists with self-checkout systems and self-ordering kiosks (Grewal et al. 2020 ). However, putting customers at work after a service failure might be tricky. Such a "prosumption" experience (Ritzer and Jurgenson 2010 ) could be a significant source of customer frustration. It would reduce customers' opportunities to spontaneously share emotions and force them to rationalize their experiences to adapt to the ServBots' technical constraints and limitations (Lajante 2019a ). Therefore, it is necessary to investigate customers' ServBots acceptance and satisfaction with the service recovery according to the required level of engagement to co-produce and co-deliver the service with the ServBots.

Fifth, findings from our systematic review showed that the importance of IJ in service recovery is context-dependent. For instance, customers recovering service from online retailers (Jun and Seock 2017 ) and airline companies (Nikbin et al. 2015 ) are less sensitive to FLEs' IJ norms than when coping in banking (Maxham and Netemeyer 2002 ) or restaurant service encounters (Tsao 2018 ). Moreover, different segmentation strategies and brand positioning can produce other customers' expectations and sensitivities. For instance, customers' ServBots' acceptance might be higher for low-cost retailers and airline companies focusing on transactional services than for premium companies focusing on interactional services (Rancati and Maggioni 2022 ). Finally, different stages of economic and technological developments in other cultures may impact customers' ServBots acceptance responses. For instance, empathy is a vital service quality dimension for Asian customers for high-tech services companies (He and Li 2010 ), while reliability is the primary service quality dimension for Western customers (Andronikidis and Bellou 2010 ). Therefore, such moderators could increase or decrease customers' ServBots acceptance and should be investigated in future studies.

Data Availability

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author [[email protected]] on request.

Acosta-Mitjans A, Cruz-Sandoval D, Hervas R, Johnson E, Nugent C, Favela J (2019) Affective embodied agents and their effect on decision making. Proc MDPI 31(1):71. https://doi.org/10.3390/proceedings2019031071

Article   Google Scholar  

Agnihotri D, Kulshreshta K, Tripathi V (2020) A study on service justice effectiveness on customer satisfaction and repurchase intention in social media environment on major online shopping malls. Finance India 34(2):541–562

Google Scholar  

Akdim K, Belanche D, Flavián M (2021) Attitudes toward service robots: analyses of explicit and implicit attitudes based on anthropomorphism and construal level theory. Int J Contemp Hosp Manag. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-12-2020-1406

Amelia A, Mathies C, Patterson PG (2021) Customer acceptance of frontline service robots in retail banking: a qualitative approach. J Serv Manag 33(2):321–341. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOSM-10-2020-0374

Andronikidis A, Bellou V (2010) Verifying alternative measures of the service-quality construct: consistencies and contradictions. J Mark Manag 26(5–6):570–587. https://doi.org/10.1080/02672570903498850

Asada M (2015) Towards artificial empathy. Int J Soc Robot 7(1):19–33. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-014-0253-z

Assefa ES (2014) The effects of justice-oriented service recovery on customer satisfaction and loyalty in retail banks in Ethiopia. EMAJ 4(1):49–58

Aurier P, Siadou-Martin B (2007) Perceived justice and consumption experience evaluations: a qualitative and experimental investigation. Int J Serv Ind Manag 18(5):450–471. https://doi.org/10.1108/09564230710826241

Azab C, Clark T, Jarvis CB (2018) Positive psychological capacities: the mystery ingredient in successful service recoveries? J Serv Mark 32(7):897–912. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSM-11-2017-0407

Bagheri E, Roesler O, Cao HL, Vanderborght B (2021) A reinforcement learning based cognitive empathy framework for social robots. Int J Soc Robot 13(5):1079–1093. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-020-00683-4

Balaji MS, Roy SK, Quazi A (2017) Customers’ emotion regulation strategies in service failure encounters. Eur J Mark 51(5/6):960–982. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJM-03-2015-0169

Barakat LL, Ramsey JR, Lorenz MP, Gosling M (2015) Severe service failure recovery revisited: evidence of its determinants in an emerging market context. Int Res J Mark 32(1):113–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijresmar.2014.10.001

Barakova EI, De Haas M, Kuijpers W, Irigoyen N, Betancourt A (2018) Socially grounded game strategy enhances bonding and perceived smartness of a humanoid robot. Connect Sci 30(1):81–98. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540091.2017.1350938

Barrett LF (2017) How emotions are made: the secret life of the brain. Pan Macmillan, New York

Barrett LF, Adolphs R, Marsella S, Martinez AM, Pollak SD (2019) Emotional expressions reconsidered: challenges to inferring emotion from human facial movements. Psychol Sci Public Interest 20(1):1–68. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100619832930

Belanche D, Casaló LV, Flavián C, Schepers J (2020) Robots or frontline employees? Exploring customers’ attributions of responsibility and stability after service failure or success. J Serv Manag 31(2):267–289. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOSM-05-2019-0156

Belanche D, Casaló LV, Flavián C (2021) Frontline robots in tourism and hospitality: service enhancement or cost reduction? Electron Mark 31(3):477–492. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12525-020-00432-5

Bettencourt LA, Brown SW (2003) Role stressors and customer-oriented boundary-spanning behaviors in service organizations. J Acad Mark Sci 31(4):394–408. https://doi.org/10.1177/0092070303255636

Borghi M, Mariani MM (2021) Service robots in online reviews: online robotic discourse. Ann Tour Res. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2020.103036

Burns R, Jeon M, Park CH (2018) Robotic motion learning framework to promote social engagement. Appl Sci 8(2):241. https://doi.org/10.3390/app8020241

Byrd K, Fan A, Her E, Liu Y, Almanza B, Leitch S (2021) Robot vs human: expectations, performances, and gaps in off-premise restaurant service modes. Int J Contemp Hosp Manag 33(11):3996–4016. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-07-2020-0721

Cai R, Qu H (2018) Customers’ perceived justice, emotions, direct and indirect reactions to service recovery: moderating effects of recovery efforts. J Hosp Mark Manag 27(3):323–345. https://doi.org/10.1080/19368623.2018.1385434

Čaić M, Odekerken-Schröder G, Mahr D (2018) Service robots: value co-creation and co-destruction in elderly care networks. J Serv Manag 29(2):178–205. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOSM-07-2017-0179

Carlson Z, Lemmon L, Higgins M, Frank D, Salek Shahrezaie R, Feil-Seifer D (2019) Perceived mistreatment and emotional capability following aggressive treatment of robots and computers. Int J Soc Robot 11(5):727–739. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-019-00599-8

Cha SS (2020) Customers’ intention to use robot-serviced restaurants in Korea: relationship of coolness and MCI factors. Int J Contemp Hosp Manag 32(9):2947–2968. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-01-2020-0046

Chebat JC, Slusarczyk W (2005) How emotions mediate the effects of perceived justice on loyalty in service recovery situations: an empirical study. J Bus Res 58(5):664–673. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2003.09.005

Chen P, Kim YG (2019) Role of the perceived justice of service recovery: a comparison of first-time and repeat visitors. Tour Hosp Res 19(1):98–111. https://doi.org/10.1177/1467358417704885

Cheung MF, To WM (2017) The effect of organizational responses to service failures on customer satisfaction perception. Serv Bus 11(4):767–784

Chiang AH, Trimi S (2020) Impacts of service robots on service quality. Serv Bus 14(3):439–459. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11628-020-00423-8

Choi B, Choi BJ (2014) The effects of perceived service recovery justice on customer affection, loyalty, and word-of-mouth. Eur J Mark 48(1/2):108–131. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJM-06-2011-0299

Choi BC, Kim SS, Jiang Z (2016) Influence of firm’s recovery endeavors upon privacy breach on online customer behavior. J Manag Inf Syst 33(3):904–933. https://doi.org/10.1080/07421222.2015.1138375

Choi Y, Choi M, Oh M, Kim S (2020) Service robots in hotels: understanding the service quality perceptions of human–robot interaction. J Hosp Mark Manag 29(6):613–635. https://doi.org/10.1080/19368623.2020.1703871

Choi S, Mattila AS, Bolton LE (2021) To err is human (-oid): how do consumers react to robot service failure and recovery? J Serv Res 24(3):354–371

Christou P, Simillidou A, Stylianou MC (2020) Tourists’ perceptions regarding the use of anthropomorphic robots in tourism and hospitality. Int J Contemp Hosp Manag 32(11):3665–3683. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-05-2020-0423

Chumkamon S, Hayashi E, Koike M (2016) Intelligent emotion and behavior based on topological consciousness and adaptive resonance theory in a companion robot. Biol Inspired Cogn Archit 18:51–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bica.2016.09.004

Cominelli L, Feri F, Garofalo R, Giannetti C, Meléndez-Jiménez MA, Greco A, Kirchkamp O (2021) Promises and trust in human–robot interaction. Sci Rep 11(1):1–14. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-88622-9

Dallimore KS, Sparks BA, Butcher K (2007) The influence of angry customer outbursts on service providers’ facial displays and affective states. J Serv Res 10(1):78–92. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094670507304694

Davenport T, Guha A, Grewal D, Bressgott T (2020) How artificial intelligence will change the future of marketing. J Acad Mark Sci 48(1):24–42. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-019-00696-0

De Ruyter K, Wetzels M (2000) Customer equity considerations in service recovery: a cross-industry perspective. Int J Serv Ind Manag 11(1):91–108. https://doi.org/10.1108/09564230010310303

De Carolis B, Ferilli S, Palestra G (2017) Simulating empathic behavior in a social assistive robot. Multimed Tools Appl 76(4):5073–5094. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11042-016-3797-0

De Gauquier L, Brengman M, Willems K, Cao HL, Vanderborght B (2021) In or out? A field observational study on the placement of entertaining robots in retailing. Int J Retail Distrib Manag 49(7):846–874. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJRDM-10-2020-0413

De Jong D, Hortensius R, Hsieh TY, Cross ES (2021) Empathy and schadenfreude in human–robot teams. J Cogn 4(1):35. https://doi.org/10.5334/joc.177

De Kervenoael R, Hasan R, Schwob A, Goh E (2020) Leveraging human-robot interaction in hospitality services: incorporating the role of perceived value, empathy, and information sharing into visitors’ intentions to use social robots. Tour Manag 78:104042. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2019.104042

Devillers L (2017) Des robots et des hommes: Mythes, fantasmes et réalité. Éditions Plon, Paris

DeWitt T, Nguyen DT, Marshall R (2008) Exploring customer loyalty following service recovery: the mediating effects of trust and emotions. J Serv Res 10(3):269–281. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094670507310767

Dong B, Evans KR, Zou S (2008) The effects of customer participation in co-created service recovery. J Acad Mark Sci 36(1):123–137. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-007-0059-8

Dos Santos CP, Fernandes DV (2008) The impact of service recovery processes on consumer trust and loyalty in car repair services. Lat Am Bus Rev 8(2):89–113

Dumouchel P (2017) Of objects and affect artificial empathy, pure sociality, and affective coordination. Jpn Rev Cult Anthropol 18(1):99–113. https://doi.org/10.14890/jrca.18.1_99

Ekman P, Friesen WV (1978) Manual for the facial action coding system. Consulting Psychologists Press

Ekman P, Dalgleish T, Power M (1999) Basic emotions. Handbook of cognition and emotion. Wiley, Chihester

Ellyawati J, Purwanto BM, Dharmmes BS (2012) The effect of perceived justice on customer satisfaction in the service recovery context: testing mediating variables. J Serv Sci Manag 5(2):87–100

Fan A, Wu L, Miao L, Mattila AS (2020) When does technology anthropomorphism help alleviate customer dissatisfaction after a service failure? The moderating role of consumer technology self-efficacy and interdependent self-construal. J Hosp Mark Manag 29(3):269–290. https://doi.org/10.1080/19368623.2019.1639095

Fernandes T, Morgado M, Rodrigues MA (2018) The role of employee emotional competence in service recovery encounters. J Serv Mark 32(7):835–849. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSM-07-2017-0237

Flavián C, Pérez-Rueda A, Belanche D, Casaló LV (2021) Intention to use analytical artificial intelligence (AI) in services–the effect of technology readiness and awareness. J Serv Manag 33(2):293–320. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOSM-10-2020-0378

Forgas-Coll S, Huertas-Garcia R, Andriella A, Alenyà G (2022) The effects of gender and personality of robot assistants on customers’ acceptance of their service. Serv Bus 16:359–389

Fung P, Bertero D, Wan Y, Dey A, Chan RHY, Bin Siddique F, Lin R (2016) Towards empathetic human–robot interactions. Cicling 9624:173–193. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-75487-1_14

Gelbrich K (2010) Anger, frustration, and helplessness after service failure: coping strategies and effective informational support. J Acad Mark Sci 38(5):567–585. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-009-0169-6

Glaskin K (2012) Empathy and the robot: a neuroanthropological analysis. Ann Anthropol Pract 36(1):68–87. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2153-9588.2012.01093.x

Global Robotics Industry (2021) https://www.proquest.com/docview/2605420980?accountid=13631&parentSessionId=16Xo9vf8N6k0UcSitm23kSo%2ByMh4CYha%2FsAYdi6lr2I%3D

Gockley R, Bruce A, Forlizzi J, Michalowski M, Mundell A, Rosenthal S, Sellner B, Simmons R, Snipes K, Schultz A, Wang J (2005) Designing robots for long-term social interaction. IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems pp 1338–1343

Gohary A, Hamzelu B, Pourazizi L (2016) A little bit more value creation and a lot of less value destruction! Exploring service recovery paradox in value context: a study in travel industry. J Hosp Tour Manag 29:189–203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhtm.2016.09.001

Grewal D, Noble SM, Roggeveen AL, Nordfalt J (2020) The future of in-store technology. J Acad Mark Sci 48(1):96–113. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-019-00697-z

Gross JJ (1999) Emotion regulation: past, present, future. Cogn Emot 13(5):551–573. https://doi.org/10.1080/026999399379186

Gunes H, Hung H (2016) Is automatic facial expression recognition of emotions coming to a dead end? The rise of the new kids on the block. Image vis Comput 55(1):6–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.imavis.2016.03.013

Haidt J, Keltner D (1999) Culture and facial expression: open-ended methods find more expressions and a gradient of recognition. Cogn Emot 13(3):225–266. https://doi.org/10.1080/026999399379267

Harrison-Walker L (2012) The role of cause and affect in service failure. J Serv Mark 26(2):115–123. https://doi.org/10.1108/08876041211215275

Harrison-Walker LJ (2019) The effect of consumer emotions on outcome behaviors following service failure. J Serv Mark 33(3):285–302. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSM-04-2018-0124

He H, Li Y (2010) Key service drivers for high-tech service brand equity: the mediating role of overall service quality and perceived value. J Mark Manag 27(1/2):77–99. https://doi.org/10.1080/0267257X.2010.495276

Hempel S (2020) Conducting your literature review. American Psychological Association, Washington

Book   Google Scholar  

Heyes C (2018) Empathy is not in our genes. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 95:499–507. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2018.11.001

Hieida C, Horii T, Nagai T (2018) Deep emotion: a computational model of emotion using deep neural networks. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1808.08447

Hocutt MA, Bowers MR, Donavan DT (2006) The art of service recovery: fact or fiction? J Serv Mark 20(3):199–207. https://doi.org/10.1108/08876040610665652

Hofree G, Ruvolo P, Bartlett MS, Winkielman P (2014) Bridging the mechanical and the human mind: spontaneous mimicry of a physically present android. PLoS ONE 9(7):e99934. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0099934

Huang MH, Rust RT (2018) Artificial intelligence in service. J Serv Res 21(2):155–172. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094670517752459

Huang MH, Rust RT (2021) A strategic framework for artificial intelligence in marketing. J Acad Mark Sci 49(1):30–50

Ivanov S, Webster C (2021) Willingness-to-pay for robot-delivered tourism and hospitality services–an exploratory study. Int J Contemp Hosp Manag 33(11):3926–3955. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-09-2020-1078

Ivkov M, Blešić I, Dudić B, Pajtinková Bartáková G, Dudić Z (2020) Are future professionals willing to implement service robots? Attitudes of hospitality and tourism students towards service robotization. Electron 9(9):1442. https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics9091442

James J, Balamurali BT, Watson CI, MacDonald B (2020) Empathetic speech synthesis and testing for healthcare robots. Int J Soc Robot 13:2119–2137. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-020-00691-4

Joosten H, Bloemer J, Hillebrand B (2017) Consumer control in service recovery: beyond decisional control. J Serv Manag 28(3):499–519. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOSM-07-2016-0192

Jung NY, Seock YK (2017) Effect of service recovery on customers’ perceived justice, satisfaction, and word-of-mouth intentions on online shopping websites. J Retail Consum Serv 37:23–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2017.01.012

Kähkönen T, Blomqvist K, Gillespie N, Vanhala M (2021) Employee trust repair: a systematic review of 20 years of empirical research and future research directions. J Bus Res 130:98–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.03.019

Keltner D, Sauter D, Tracy J, Cowen A (2019) Emotional expression: advances in basic emotion theory. J Nonverbal Behav 43(2):133–160. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10919-019-00293-3

Kerruish E (2021) Assembling human empathy towards care robots: the human labor of robot sociality. Emot Space Soc 41:100840. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emospa.2021.100840

Khaksar SMS, Khosla R, Chu MT, Shahmehr FS (2016) Service innovation using social robot to reduce social vulnerability among older people in residential care facilities. Technol Forecast Soc Change 113:438–453. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2016.07.009

Kharub I, Lwin M, Khan A, Mubin O (2021) Perceived service quality in HRI: applying the SERVBOT framework. Front Robot AI 8:746674. https://doi.org/10.3389/frobt.2021.746674

Kołakowska A, Landowska A, Szwoch M, Szwoch W, Wrobel MR (2014) Emotion recognition and its applications. Adv Intell Syst Comput 300:51–62. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-08491-6_5

Konijn EA, Hoorn JF (2020) Differential facial articulacy in robots and humans elicit different levels of responsiveness, empathy, and projected feelings. Robotics 9(4):92. https://doi.org/10.3390/robotics9040092

Kozub K, Anthony O’Neill M, Palmer A (2014) Emotional antecedents and outcomes of service recovery. J Serv Mark 28(3):233–243. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSM-08-2012-0147

Krishna A, Dangayach GS, Jain R (2011) Service recovery: literature review and research issues. J Serv Res 3(1):71. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12927-011-0004-8

Kühnlenz B, Sosnowski S, Buß M, Wollherr D, Kühnlenz K, Buss M (2013) Increasing helpfulness towards a robot by emotional adaption to the user. Int J Soc Robot 5(4):457–476. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-013-0182-2

Kuo YF, Wu CM (2012) Satisfaction and post-purchase intentions with service recovery of online shopping websites: perspectives on perceived justice and emotions. Int J Inf Manag Sci 32(2):127–138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2011.09.001

Kwon O, Kim J, Jin Y, Lee N (2018) Impact of human-robot interaction on user satisfaction with humanoid-based healthcare. Int J Eng Technol 7(2):68–75. https://doi.org/10.14419/ijet.v7i2.12.11038

Lajante M, Ladhari R (2019) The promise and perils of the peripheral psychophysiology of emotion in retailing and consumer services. J Retail Consum Serv 50:305–313. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2018.07.005

Lajante M, Lux G (2020) Perspective: why organizational researchers should consider psychophysiology when investigating emotion? Front Psychol 11:1705. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01705

Lajante M (2019a) The firm's empathic capacity: a social neuroscience perspective for managing customer engagement in the digital era. Augmented Customer Strategy: CRM in the Digital Age 183–201. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119618324.ch11

Lajante M (2019b) Augmented empathic capacity: an integrative framework for supporting customer engagement throughout the automated customer journey. International Conference on Advances in National Brand and Private Label Marketing pp 121–129. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-18911-2_16

Landowska A (2014) Emotion monitoring–verification of physiological characteristics measurement procedures. Metrol Meas Syst 21(4):719–732. https://doi.org/10.2478/mms-2014-0049

Landowska A (2019) Uncertainty in emotion recognition. J Inf Commun Ethics Soc 17(3):273–291. https://doi.org/10.1108/JICES-03-2019-0034

Lee JLM, Siu NYM, Zhang TJF (2020) Does brand equity always work? A study of the moderating effect of justice perceptions and consumer attribution towards Chinese consumers. J Int Consum Mark 32(1):69–81. https://doi.org/10.1080/08961530.2019.1635551

Leite I, Martinho C, Paiva A (2013a) Social robots for long-term interaction: a survey. Int J Soc Robot 5(2):291–308

Leite I, Pereira A, Mascarenhas S, Martinho C, Prada R, Paiva A (2013b) The influence of empathy in human–robot relations. Int J Hum Comput Stud 71(3):250–260. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2012.09.005

Leite I, Castellano G, Pereira A, Martinho C, Paiva A (2014) Empathic robots for long-term interaction. Int J Soc Robot 6(3):329–341. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-014-0227-1

Lewinski P, Den Uyl TM, Butler C (2014) Automated facial coding: validation of basic emotions and FACS AUs in FaceReader. J Neurosci Psychol Econ 7(4):227–236. https://doi.org/10.1037/npe0000033

Lii YS, Lee M (2012) The joint effects of compensation frames and price levels on service recovery of online pricing error. Manag Serv Qual 22(1):4–20. https://doi.org/10.1108/09604521211198083

Lin WB (2006) Correlation between personality characteristics, situations of service failure, customer relation strength and remedial recovery strategy. Serv Mark Q 28(1):55–88. https://doi.org/10.1300/J396v28n01_04

Lin HH, Wang YS, Chang LK (2011) Consumer responses to online retailer’s service recovery after a service failure: a perspective of justice theory. Manag Serv Qual 21(5):511–534. https://doi.org/10.1108/09604521111159807

Liu XY, Chi NW, Gremler DD (2019) Emotion cycles in services: emotional contagion and emotional labor effects. J Serv Res 22(3):285–300. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094670519835309

Luo A, Mattila AS (2020) Discrete emotional responses and face-to-face complaining: the joint effect of service failure type and culture. Int J Hosp Manag 90:102613. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2020.102613

Lux G, Lajante M (2017) Introducing emotions in the appropriation of management tools: a propaedeutic. Int J Work Organ Emot 8(3):213–233. https://doi.org/10.1504/ijwoe.2017.10009298

Malinowska JK (2021) What does it mean to empathize with a robot? Minds Mach 31(3):361–376. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-021-09558-7

Mattiassi AD, Sarrica M, Cavallo F, Fortunati L (2021) What do humans feel with mistreated humans, animals, robots, and objects? Exploring the role of cognitive empathy. Motiv Emot 45(4):543–555. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-021-09886-2

Maxham JG III, Netemeyer RG (2002) Modeling customer perceptions of complaint handling over time: the effects of perceived justice on satisfaction and intent. J Retail 78(4):239–252. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-4359(02)00100-8

Menne IM, Schwab F (2018) Faces of emotion: investigating emotional facial expressions towards a robot. Int J Soc Robot 10(2):199–209. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-017-0447-2

Menon K, Dubé L (2000) Ensuring greater satisfaction by engineering salesperson response to customer emotions. J Retail 76(3):285–307. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-4359(00)00034-8

Menon K, Dubé L (2007) The effect of emotional provider support on angry versus anxious consumers. Int Res J Mark 24(3):268–275. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijresmar.2007.04.001

Michel S, Bowen D, Johnston R (2009) Why service recovery fails. J Serv Manag 20(3):253–273. https://doi.org/10.1108/09564230910964381

Min H, Lim Y, Magnini VP (2015) Factors affecting customer satisfaction in responses to negative online hotel reviews: The impact of empathy, paraphrasing, and speed. Cornell Hosp Q 56(2):223–231. https://doi.org/10.1177/1938965514560014

Mingotto E, Montaguti F, Tamma M (2021) Challenges in re-designing operations and jobs to embody AI and robotics in services. Findings from a case in the hospitality industry. Electron Mark 31(3):493–510. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12525-020-00439-y

Mirnig N, Strasser E, Weiss A, Kühnlenz B, Wollherr D, Tscheligi M (2015) Can you read my face? Int J Soc Robot 7(1):63–76. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-014-0261-z

Mohd-Any AA, Mutum DS, Ghazali EM, Mohamed-Zulkifli L (2019) To fly or not to fly? An empirical study of trust, post-recovery satisfaction and loyalty of Malaysia Airlines passengers. J Serv Theory Pract 29(5/6):661–690. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSTP-10-2018-0223

Mullins-Nelson JL, Salekin RT, Leistico AMR (2006) Psychopathy, empathy, and perspective-taking ability in a community sample: Implications for the successful psychopathy concept. Int J Forensic Ment Health 5(2):133–149. https://doi.org/10.1080/14999013.2006.10471238

Nadiri H (2016) Diagnosing the impact of retail bank customers’ perceived justice on their service recovery satisfaction and postpurchase behaviours: an empirical study in financial centre of middle east. Econ Res 29(1):193–216. https://doi.org/10.1080/1331677X.2016.1164925

Niculescu A, van Dijk B, Nijholt A, Li H, See SL (2013) Making social robots more attractive: the effects of voice pitch, humor and empathy. Int J Soc Robot 5(2):171–191. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-012-0171-x

Nikbin D, Marimuthu M, Hyun SS, Ismail I (2015) Relationships of perceived justice to service recovery, service failure attributions, recovery satisfaction, and loyalty in the context of airline travelers. Asia Pac J Tour Res 20(3):239–262

Odekerken-Schröder G, Mennens K, Steins M, Mahr D (2021) The service triad: an empirical study of service robots, customers and frontline employees. J Serv Manag 33(2):246–292. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOSM-10-2020-0372

Ok C, Back KJ, Shanklin CW (2005) Modeling roles of service recovery strategy: a relationship-focused view. J Hosp Tour Res 29(4):484–507. https://doi.org/10.1177/1096348005276935

Ortiz J, Chiu TS, Wen-Hai C, Hsu CW (2017) Perceived justice, emotions, and behavioral intentions in the Taiwanese food and beverage industry. Int J Confl Manag 28(4):437–463. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCMA-10-2016-0084

Ozgen O, Kurt SD (2012) Pre-recovery and post-recovery emotions in the service context: a preliminary study. Manag Serv Qual 22(6):592–605. https://doi.org/10.1108/09604521211287561

Ozkan-Tektas O (2017) Perceived justice and post-recovery satisfaction in banking service failures: do commitment types matter? Serv Bus 11(4):851–870

Ozuem W, Ranfagni S, Willis M, Rovai S, Howell K (2021) Exploring customers’ responses to online service failure and recovery strategies during Covid-19 pandemic: an actor–network theory perspective. Psychol Mark 38(9):1440–1459. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.21527

Paluch S, Tuzovic S, Holz HF, Kies A, Jörling M (2021) “My colleague is a robot”–exploring frontline employees’ willingness to work with collaborative service robots. J Serv Manag 33(2):363–388. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOSM-11-2020-0406

Pasternak K, Wu Z, Visser U, Lisetti C (2021) Let's be friends! A rapport-building 3D embodied conversational agent for the Human Support Robot. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2103.04498

Pelau C, Dabija DC, Ene I (2021) What makes an AI device human-like? The role of interaction quality, empathy and perceived psychological anthropomorphic characteristics in the acceptance of artificial intelligence in the service industry. Comput Hum Behav 122:106855. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2021.106855

Petzer DJ, De Meyer-Heydenrych CF, Svensson G (2017) Perceived justice, service satisfaction and behavior intentions following service recovery efforts in a South African retail banking context. Int J Bank Mark 35(2):241–253. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJBM-04-2016-0047

Pillai R, Sivathanu B (2020) Adoption of AI-based chatbots for hospitality and tourism. Int J Contemp Hosp Manag 32(10):3199–3226. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-04-2020-0259

Pinillos R, Marcos S, Feliz R, Zalama E, Gómez-García-Bermejo J (2016) Long-term assessment of a service robot in a hotel environment. Rob Auton Sys 79:40–57

Pinney J, Carroll F, Newbury P (2022) Human–robot interaction: the impact of robotic aesthetics on anticipated human trust. PeerJ Comput Sci 8:e837. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj-cs.837

Pitardi V, Wirtz J, Paluch S, Kunz WH (2021) Service robots, agency and embarrassing service encounters. J Serv Manag 33(2):389–414. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOSM-12-2020-0435

Pozharliev R, De Angelis M, Rossi D, Romani S, Verbeke W, Cherubino P (2021) Attachment styles moderate customer responses to frontline service robots: evidence from affective, attitudinal, and behavioral measures. Psychol Mark 38(5):881–895. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.21475

Prasongsukarn K, Patterson PG (2012) An extended service recovery model: the moderating impact of temporal sequence of events. J Serv Mark 26(7):510–520. https://doi.org/10.1108/08876041211266477

Prince EB, Martin KB, Messinger DS, Allen M (2017) Facial action coding system. SAGE Encycl Commun Res Methods 1:487–491

Radu A, Surachartkumtonkun J, Weaven S, Thaichon P (2020) Examining antecedents of reconciliation following service failure and recovery. J Strateg Mark 28(5):417–433. https://doi.org/10.1080/0965254X.2018.1518920

Räikkönen J, Honkanen A (2016) Making it right the third time? Pursuing satisfaction and loyalty in a double service recovery. Scand J Hosp Tour 16(4):333–351

Rancati G, Maggioni I (2022) Neurophysiological responses to robot–human interactions in retail stores. J Serv Mark. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSM-04-2021-0126

Riddoch KA, Cross E (2021) “Hit the robot on the head with this mallet”–making a case for including more open questions in HRI research. Front Robot AI. https://doi.org/10.3389/frobt.2021.603510

Rincon JA, Costa A, Novais P, Julian V, Carrascosa C (2019) A new emotional robot assistant that facilitates human interaction and persuasion. Knowl Inf Syst 60(1):363–383. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10115-018-1231-9

Ritzer G, Jurgenson N (2010) Production, consumption, prosumption: the nature of capitalism in the age of the digital “prosumer.” J Consum Cult 10(1):13–36. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469540509354673

Roberts SF, Koditschek DE, Miracchi LJ (2020) Examples of Gibsonian affordances in legged robotics research using an empirical, generative framework. Front Neurorobot 14:12

Roesler E, Manzey D, Onnasch L (2021) A meta-analysis on the effectiveness of anthropomorphism in human-robot interaction. Sci Robot 6(58):5425. https://doi.org/10.1126/scirobotics.abj5425

Romero J, Lado N (2021) Service robots and COVID-19: exploring perceptions of prevention efficacy at hotels in generation Z. Int J Contemp Hosp Manag 33(11):4057–4078. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-10-2020-1214

Rossi S, Conti D, Garramone F, Santangelo G, Staffa M, Varrasi S, Di Nuovo A (2020) The role of personality factors and empathy in the acceptance and performance of a social robot for psychometric evaluations. Robotics 9(2):39. https://doi.org/10.3390/robotics9020039

Sakurai E, Kurashige K, Tsuruta S, Sakurai Y, Knauf R, Damiani E, Frati F (2020) Embodiment matters: toward culture-specific robotized counselling. J Reliab Intell Environ 6(3):129–139. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40860-020-00109-y

Salagrama R, Prashar S, Sai Vijay T (2021) Do customers exhibit gratitude after service recovery? Understanding the moderating role of relationship type. Serv Bus 15(4):757–779

Savela N, Turja T, Oksanen A (2018) Social acceptance of robots in different occupational fields: a systematic literature review. Int J Soc Robot 10(4):493–502

Schepers J, Streukens S (2022) To serve and protect: a typology of service robots and their role in physically safe services. J Serv Manag 33(2):197–209. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOSM-11-2021-0409

Schepers JJL, Belanche Gracia D, Casaló LV, Flavián C (2022) How smart should a service robot be? J Serv Res 25(4):565–582. https://doi.org/10.1177/10946705221107704

Scherer KR, Grandjean D (2008) Facial expressions allow inference of both emotions and their components. Cogn Emot 22(5):789–801. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699930701516791

Scherer KR, Moors A (2019) The emotion process: event appraisal and component differentiation. Annu Rev Psychol 70:719–745. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-122216-011854

Schmetkamp S (2020) Understanding AI—can and should we empathize with robots? Rev Philos Psychol 11(4):881–897. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13164-020-00473-x

Seiders K, Berry LL (1998) Service fairness: what it is and why it matters. Acad Manag Perspect 12(2):8–20. https://doi.org/10.5465/ame.1998.650513

Sengupta A, Balaji MS, Krishnan BC (2015) How customers cope with service failure? A study of brand reputation and customer satisfaction. J Bus Res 68(3):665–674. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2014.08.005

Severinson-Eklundh K, Green A, Httenrauch H (2003) Social and collaborative aspects of interaction with a service robot. Robot Auton Syst 42(3–4):223–234

Shin HH, Jeong M (2020) Guests’ perceptions of robot concierge and their adoption intentions. Int J Contemp Hosp Manag 32(8):2613–2633. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-09-2019-0798

Siehl C, Bowen DE, Pearson CM (1992) Service encounters as rites of integration: an information processing model. Organ Sci 3(4):537–555. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.3.4.537

Siu NYM, Zhang TJF, Yau CYJ (2013) The roles of justice and customer satisfaction in customer retention: a lesson from service recovery. J Bus Ethics 114(4):675–686. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1713-3

Smith ME, Hart G (1994) Nurses’ responses to patient anger: from disconnecting to connecting. J Adv Nurs 20(4):643–651

Smith AK, Bolton RN, Wagner J (1999) A model of customer satisfaction with service encounters involving failure and recovery. J Mark Res 36(3):356–372. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224379903600305

Søraa RA, Nyvoll P, Tøndel G, Fosch-Villaronga E, Serrano JA (2021) The social dimension of domesticating technology: interactions between older adults, caregivers, and robots in the home. Technol Forecast Soc Change 167:120678. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2021.120678

Tan SY, Taeihagh A, Tripathi A (2021) Tensions and antagonistic interactions of risks and ethics of using robotics and autonomous systems in long-term care. Technol Forecast Soc Change 167:120686. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2021.120686

Tisseron S (2015) Le jour où mon robot m’aimera: Vers l’empathie artificielle. Albin Michel, Paris

Tsao WC (2018) Star power: the effect of star rating on service recovery in the hotel industry. Int J Contemp Hosp Manag 30(2):1092–1111. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-05-2016-0247

Tuomi A, Tussyadiah IP, Stienmetz J (2021) Applications and implications of service robots in hospitality. Cornell Hosp Q 62(2):232–247. https://doi.org/10.1177/1938965520923961

Umasuthan H, Park OJ, Ryu JH (2017) Influence of empathy on hotel guests’ emotional service experience. J Serv Mark 31(6):618–635. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSM-06-2016-0220

Valentini S, Orsingher C, Polyakova A (2020) Customers’ emotions in service failure and recovery: a meta-analysis. Mark Lett 31(2):199–216. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11002-020-09517-9

Van Doorn J, Mende M, Noble SM, Hulland J, Ostrom AL, Grewal D, Petersen JA (2017) Domo arigato Mr Roboto: emergence of automated social presence in organizational frontlines and customers’ service experiences. J Serv Res 20(1):43–58

Van Vaerenbergh Y, Varga D, De Keyser A, Orsingher C (2019) The service recovery journey: conceptualization, integration, and directions for future research. J Serv Res 22(2):103–119

Wang YS, Wu SC, Lin HH, Wang YY (2011) The relationship of service failure severity, service recovery justice, and perceived switching costs with customer loyalty in the context of e-tailing. Int J Inf Manage 31(4):350–359. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2010.09.001

Wen B, Chi C (2013) Examine the cognitive and affective antecedents to service recovery satisfaction. Int J Contemp Hosp Manag 25(3):306–327. https://doi.org/10.1108/09596111311310991

Weun S, Beatty SE, Jones MA (2004) The impact of service failure severity on service recovery evaluations and post-recovery relationships. J Serv Mark 18(2):133–146. https://doi.org/10.1108/08876040410528737

Wharton AS (2009) The sociology of emotional labor. Annu Rev Sociol 35:147–165. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-soc-070308-115944

Wieseke J, Geigenmüller A, Kraus F (2012) On the role of empathy in customer-employee interactions. J Serv Res 15(3):316–331. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094670512439743

Wirtz J, McColl-Kennedy JR (2010) Opportunistic customer claiming during service recovery. J Acad Mark Sci 38(5):654–675. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-009-0177-6

Wirtz J, Patterson PG, Kunz WH, Gruber T, Lu VN, Paluch S, Martins A (2018) Brave new world: service robots in the frontline. J Serv Manag 29(5):907–931. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOSM-04-2018-0119

Wu L (2013) The antecedents of customer satisfaction and its link to complaint intentions in online shopping: an integration of justice, technology, and trust. Int J Inf Manage 33(1):166–176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2012.09.001

Wu L, Fan A, Yang Y, He Z (2021) Robotic involvement in the service encounter: a value-centric experience framework and empirical validation. J Serv Manag 32(5):783–812. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOSM-12-2020-0448

Xu S, Stienmetz J, Ashton M (2020) How will service robots redefine leadership in hotel management? A Delphi approach. Int J Contemp Hosp Manag 32(6):2217–2237. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-05-2019-0505

Yeoh PL, Woolford SW, Eshghi A, Butaney G (2015) Customer response to service recovery in online shopping. J Serv Res 14(2):33–56

Yitzhak N, Giladi N, Gurevich T, Messinger DS, Prince EB, Martin K, Aviezer H (2017) Gently does it: humans outperform a software classifier in recognizing subtle, nonstereotypical facial expressions. Emotion 17(8):1187. https://doi.org/10.1037/emo0000287

Zaki J, Oschner K (2016) Empathy. In: Feldman-Barrett L, Lewis M, Haviland-Jones JM (eds) Handbook of emotions. The Guilford Press, New York

Złotowski J, Proudfoot D, Yogeeswaran K, Bartneck C (2015) Anthropomorphism: opportunities and challenges in human–robot interaction. Int J Soc Robot 7(3):347–360

Download references

This work was supported by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (No 430-2019-00321, 2019).

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

emoLab, Ted Rogers School of Management, Toronto Metropolitan University, 55 Dundas St W, Toronto, ON, M5G 2C3, Canada

Mathieu Lajante, David Remisch & Nikita Dorofeev

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mathieu Lajante .

Additional information

Publisher's note.

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

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Lajante, M., Remisch, D. & Dorofeev, N. Can robots recover a service using interactional justice as employees do? A literature review-based assessment. Serv Bus 17 , 315–357 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11628-023-00525-z

Download citation

Received : 19 July 2022

Accepted : 30 January 2023

Published : 12 February 2023

Issue Date : March 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11628-023-00525-z

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

• Service robots
• Interactional justice
• Service recovery
• Systematic literature review
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research