A literature review is a knowledge collection and accumulation process that returns valuable gains for involved researchers but can be laborious if this activity is not the kind you do every day e.g., your research requires more of data processing and analysis or some real-life experiments.

In many fields, one cannot completely avoid this literature review activity for all their research life, whether one chooses to do it themselves or delegate the task to some research assistant. In any case, assuming one has a set research topic and question, deciding on the type and structure of the literature review comes as the first challenge to deal with.

Deciding on the type and structure for a literature review activity would look like considering whether to use a traditional literature search and reporting method or apply a systematic literature review protocol. In making this decision, it can be helpful to think about the expected outcome of the literature review and walk backward, imagining and then deciding the methods and structure that best achieves this outcome. Using this approach, here are two guiding questions for deciding on review type and structure:

1. What kind of information and level of detail is desired on the research topic? Do you desire to know all the existing answers to a research question? Do you desire to know these answers and to evaluate the methods that have been used to obtain these answers? or do you desire to uncover every existing work that has validated or falsified the possible answers to a research question?
2. How do you envision reporting the outcome of your literature review research exercise? Do you imagine a narrative essay report structure that freely interweaves the relevant search outcomes for your research questions or could you imagine having a structured, guided discussion of results?

Based on answers to these questions, one can determine among the many literature review methods, which is applicable and appropriate e.g.,

• a scoping review
• a state-of-the-art review
• a meta-analysis
• an umbrella review
• a classical literature review
• or a systematic review.

See Sutton et al. (2019) for a presentation of different review types and their broader categorization or Grant and Booth(2009) to simply get an idea of some review types. These two references and many others that discuss literature review are works in health science-related fields. However, their description and discussions about review methods or types can be applied in other fields such as agricultural economics.

Reporting structure of the literature review

Based on the researcher’s goals and writing skills, the ease of reporting the literature review outcomes and marking the activity as completed can vary. However, if more than one review method can be considered appropriate for a research goal, one must be careful not to simply fall for the method that sounds easiest. Rather, it is wise to consider the different stages of the review process and see which method minimizes repetitions and is most efficient in the planned timeframe. Using the case of a traditional narrative review vs. using a systematic protocol as an example, from the name, one might think that having to use a systematic protocol is more complicated than classically brushing through literature and narrating what one finds.

Well, true indeed! Systematic protocols present protocols ‘not for the feeble mind’ to adhere to and document deflections when they occur. However, a complex maze that one can see in reality may be better than an impression of a simple maze that only exists in one’s head with no evidence.

With the systematic protocol, one knows what they are getting into but in the traditional method which is all one’s head, one thinks they only have to search and narrate findings, possibly not identifying at the instance, challenges that may arise and cause repetitions of the review exercise or require consultation of other resources. These challenges may also arise in the process of a systematic review. But as one thoroughly documents, one knows to also note the necessary turns and adjustments that were made to resolve challenges. In the end, when the traditional review approach is used, one often only reports the final result, leaving off the detailed description of the method because this was neither structured nor well-documented.

As presented in the figure above, there is no hard requirement for a thorough definition of search terms and inclusion or exclusion criteria in a classical/traditional literature review. However, the structured documentation in systematic protocol requires thoroughly thinking about and documenting these. As a result of this, one falls at a lower risk of forgetting what searches have been completed and thus, repeating this. During the writing of the research report in whatever media form, recollecting the steps followed for the review is also easier, and general replication of the research can be easily carried out when needed. Following a systematic protocol is rigorous and requires high attention and documentation. Using the systematic approach also gives the confidence to say whether the review is enough or not. Lastly, available detailed documentation of the process allows one to be able to objectively review the process and justify the work done. However, as aforementioned, the research goal should guide the decision on the review type to apply. A subsidiary 5 pages literature review chapter in a master’s thesis might not require so much documentation and structure thus making a traditional or classical review of literature a preferred approach. Whereas much will be expected of an academic paper which is fully a literature review work. In any case, one must define basic literature review variables like the search terms for every literature search and one should be able to report the result of their literature review satisfactorily, irrespective of the method applied. For useful protocols for systematic reviews in agricultural economics, see this Stellenbosch University library page.

Well, there you have it. This is the first part of a literature series titled, The Search and the Review. There will be two more parts in the series.
Working with databases: A Case of Web of Science and AI and Tools for Literature Review. Use the subscription form below to subscribe and be notified of subsequent posts. Also, leave us a comment and share what you think about systematic reviews and traditional reviews or other considerations for deciding a review type.

References

Grant, M. J., & Booth, A. (2009). A typology of reviews: An analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Information & Libraries Journal, 26(2),91–108. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x

Sutton, A., Clowes, M., Preston, L., & Booth, A. (2019). Meeting the review family: Exploring review types and associated information retrieval requirements. HealthInformation & Libraries Journal, 36(3), 202–222. https://doi.org/10.1111/hir.12276