critique of literature review

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 This material may not be published, reproduced, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed without permission.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.

Have a language expert improve your writing

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

• Knowledge Base

Methodology

• How to Write a Literature Review | Guide, Examples, & Templates

How to Write a Literature Review | Guide, Examples, & Templates

Published on January 2, 2023 by Shona McCombes . Revised on September 11, 2023.

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 that you can later apply to your paper, thesis, or dissertation topic .

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 summarize sources—it analyzes, synthesizes , and critically evaluates to give a clear picture of the state of knowledge on the subject.

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

Upload your document to correct all your mistakes in minutes

Table of contents

What is the purpose of 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, free lecture slides, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions, introduction.

• Quick Run-through
• Step 1 & 2

When you write a thesis , dissertation , or research paper , you will likely 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 its scholarly context
• Develop a theoretical framework and methodology for your research
• Position your work in relation to other researchers and theorists
• Show how your research addresses a gap or contributes to a debate
• Evaluate the current state of research and demonstrate your knowledge of the scholarly debates around your topic.

Writing literature reviews is a particularly important skill if you want to apply for graduate school or pursue a career in research. We’ve written a step-by-step guide that you can follow below.

Prevent plagiarism. Run a free check.

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

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

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

Download Word doc Download Google doc

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

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

Make a list of keywords

Start by creating a list of keywords related to your research question. 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 as 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 useful 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 also use boolean operators to help narrow down your search.

Make sure to 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.

You likely won’t be able to read absolutely everything that has been written on your topic, so it will be necessary to evaluate which sources are most relevant to your research question.

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?
• 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 use our template to summarize and evaluate sources you’re thinking about using. Click on either button below to download.

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 is important to keep track of your sources with citations to avoid plagiarism . It can be helpful to make an annotated bibliography , where you compile full citation 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.

To begin organizing your literature review’s argument and structure, be sure you 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 organizing the body of a literature review. 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 summarizing sources in order.

Try to analyze 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 organize 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.

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, you can follow these tips:

• 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 sentences to draw connections, comparisons and contrasts

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

When you’ve finished writing and revising your literature review, don’t forget to proofread thoroughly before submitting. Not a language expert? Check out Scribbr’s professional proofreading services !

This article has been adapted into lecture slides that you can use to teach your students about writing a literature review.

Scribbr slides are free to use, customize, and distribute for educational purposes.

Open Google Slides Download PowerPoint

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

• Sampling methods
• Simple random sampling
• Stratified sampling
• Cluster sampling
• Likert scales
• Reproducibility

 Statistics

• Null hypothesis
• Statistical power
• Probability distribution
• Effect size
• Poisson distribution

Research bias

• Optimism bias
• Cognitive bias
• Implicit bias
• Hawthorne effect
• Anchoring bias
• Explicit bias

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 thesis, dissertation , or research paper , in order to situate your work in relation to existing knowledge.

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

• To familiarize 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 thesis or dissertation . After the introduction , it grounds your research in a scholarly field and leads directly to your theoretical framework or methodology .

A literature review is a survey of credible sources on a topic, often used in dissertations , theses, and research papers . Literature reviews give an overview of knowledge on a subject, helping you identify relevant theories and methods, as well as gaps in existing research. Literature reviews are set up similarly to other  academic texts , with an introduction , a main body, and a conclusion .

An  annotated bibliography is a list of  source references that has a short description (called an annotation ) for each of the sources. It is often assigned as part of the research process for a  paper .  

Cite this Scribbr article

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

McCombes, S. (2023, September 11). How to Write a Literature Review | Guide, Examples, & Templates. Scribbr. Retrieved August 19, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/dissertation/literature-review/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

Other students also liked, what is a theoretical framework | guide to organizing, what is a research methodology | steps & tips, how to write a research proposal | examples & templates, what is your plagiarism score.

Literature reviews

• Introduction
• Conduct your search
• Store and organise the literature

Evaluate the information you have found

Critique the literature.

• Different subject areas
• Find literature reviews

When conducting your searches you may find many references that will not be suitable to use in your literature review.

• Skim through the resource. A quick read through the table of contents, the introductory paragraph or the abstract should indicate whether you need to read further or whether you can immediately discard the result.
• Evaluate the quality and reliability of the references you find. Our evaluating information  page outlines what you need to consider when evaluating the books, journal articles, news and websites you find to ensure they are suitable for use in your literature review.

Critiquing the literature involves looking at the strength and weaknesses of the paper and evaluating the statements made by the author/s.

Books and resources on reading critically

• CASP Checklists Critical appraisal tools designed to be used when reading research. Includes tools for Qualitative studies, Systematic Reviews, Randomised Controlled Trials, Cohort Studies, Case Control Studies, Economic Evaluations, Diagnostic Studies and Clinical Prediction Rule.
• How to read critically - business and management From Postgraduate research in business - the aim of this chapter is to show you how to become a critical reader of typical academic literature in business and management.
• Learning to read critically in language and literacy Aims to develop skills of critical analysis and research design. It presents a series of examples of `best practice' in language and literacy education research.
• Critical appraisal in health sciences See tools for critically appraising health science research.

• << Previous: Store and organise the literature
• Next: Different subject areas >>
• Last Updated: Aug 9, 2024 8:34 AM
• URL: https://guides.library.uq.edu.au/research-techniques/literature-reviews

The Sheridan Libraries

• Write a Literature Review
• Sheridan Libraries
• Evaluate This link opens in a new window

What Will You Do Differently?

Please help your librarians by filling out this two-minute survey of today's class session..

Professor, this one's for you .

Introduction

Literature reviews take time. here is some general information to know before you start.  .

•  VIDEO -- This video is a great overview of the entire process.  (2020; North Carolina State University Libraries) --The transcript is included --This is for everyone; ignore the mention of "graduate students" --9.5 minutes, and every second is important  
• OVERVIEW -- Read this page from Purdue's OWL. It's not long, and gives some tips to fill in what you just learned from the video.  
• NOT A RESEARCH ARTICLE -- A literature review follows a different style, format, and structure from a research article.  

• Next: Evaluate >>
• Last Updated: Jul 30, 2024 1:42 PM
• URL: https://guides.library.jhu.edu/lit-review

Workshop: Literature Reviews- What you need to know

• How to write a literature review

Useful Titles for All of your Boxes

The Seven Steps to Producing a Literature Review:

1. Identify your question

2. Review discipline style

3. Search the literature

4. Manage your references

5. Critically analyze and evaluate

6. Synthisize

7. Write the review

• University of North Carolina Writing Center "How To" UNC Chapel Hill Writing Center "How To" on writing a literature review.
• Purdue Owl Purdue Owl help on writing a literature review

Feedback and Additional Information

• Library Workshop Evaluation Brief survey for workshop participants. Your feedback is greatly appreciated.
• TTU Library Workshops Additional information about TTU Library Workshops. All workshops are taught by Personal Librarians in Instruction Lab 150 unless otherwise noted.
• Last Updated: Aug 19, 2024 10:48 AM
• URL: https://guides.library.ttu.edu/litreview

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: 
• How to write a literature review faster with Paperpal? 
• 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  

1. 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. 

2. 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. 

Find academic papers related to your research topic faster. Try Research on Paperpal  

3. 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. 

4. 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. 

5. 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. 

6. 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. 

Strengthen your literature review with factual insights. Try Research on Paperpal for free!    

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. 

Write and Cite as you go with Paperpal Research. Start now for free.   

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. 

Whether you’re exploring a new research field or finding new angles to develop an existing topic, sifting through hundreds of papers can take more time than you have to spare. But what if you could find science-backed insights with verified citations in seconds? That’s the power of Paperpal’s new Research feature!  

How to write a literature review faster with Paperpal?

Paperpal, an AI writing assistant, integrates powerful academic search capabilities within its writing platform. With the Research feature, you get 100% factual insights, with citations backed by 250M+ verified research articles, directly within your writing interface with the option to save relevant references in your Citation Library. By eliminating the need to switch tabs to find answers to all your research questions, Paperpal saves time and helps you stay focused on your writing.   

Here’s how to use the Research feature:  

• Ask a question: Get started with a new document on paperpal.com. Click on the “Research” feature and type your question in plain English. Paperpal will scour over 250 million research articles, including conference papers and preprints, to provide you with accurate insights and citations. 
• Review and Save: Paperpal summarizes the information, while citing sources and listing relevant reads. You can quickly scan the results to identify relevant references and save these directly to your built-in citations library for later access. 
• Cite with Confidence: Paperpal makes it easy to incorporate relevant citations and references into your writing, ensuring your arguments are well-supported by credible sources. This translates to a polished, well-researched literature review. 

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 good literature review is an ongoing process, and it may be necessary to revisit and update it as your research progresses. By combining effortless research with an easy citation process, Paperpal Research streamlines the literature review process and empowers you to write faster and with more confidence. Try Paperpal Research now and see for yourself.  

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 
• How Long Should a Chapter Be?
• How to Use Paperpal to Generate Emails & Cover Letters?

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, academic integrity vs academic dishonesty: types & examples, dissertation printing and binding | types & comparison , what is a dissertation preface definition and examples , the ai revolution: authors’ role in upholding academic..., the future of academia: how ai tools are..., how to write a research proposal: (with examples..., how to write your research paper in apa..., how to choose a dissertation topic, how to write a phd research proposal, how to write an academic paragraph (step-by-step guide).

Literature Review - what is a Literature Review, why it is important and how it is done

• Strategies to Find Sources

Evaluating Literature Reviews and Sources

Reading critically, tips to evaluate sources.

• Tips for Writing Literature Reviews
• Writing Literature Review: Useful Sites
• Citation Resources
• Other Academic Writings
• Useful Resources

A good literature review evaluates a wide variety of sources (academic articles, scholarly books, government/NGO reports). It also evaluates literature reviews that study similar topics. This page offers you a list of resources and tips on how to evaluate the sources that you may use to write your review.

• A Closer Look at Evaluating Literature Reviews Excerpt from the book chapter, “Evaluating Introductions and Literature Reviews” in Fred Pyrczak’s Evaluating Research in Academic Journals: A Practical Guide to Realistic Evaluation , (Chapter 4 and 5). This PDF discusses and offers great advice on how to evaluate "Introductions" and "Literature Reviews" by listing questions and tips. First part focus on Introductions and in page 10 in the PDF, 37 in the text, it focus on "literature reviews".
• Tips for Evaluating Sources (Print vs. Internet Sources) Excellent page that will guide you on what to ask to determine if your source is a reliable one. Check the other topics in the guide: Evaluating Bibliographic Citations and Evaluation During Reading on the left side menu.

To be able to write a good Literature Review, you need to be able to read critically. Below are some tips that will help you evaluate the sources for your paper.

Reading critically (summary from How to Read Academic Texts Critically)

• Who is the author? What is his/her standing in the field.
• What is the author’s purpose? To offer advice, make practical suggestions, solve a specific problem, to critique or clarify?
• Note the experts in the field: are there specific names/labs that are frequently cited?
• Pay attention to methodology: is it sound? what testing procedures, subjects, materials were used?
• Note conflicting theories, methodologies and results. Are there any assumptions being made by most/some researchers?
• Theories: have they evolved overtime?
• Evaluate and synthesize the findings and conclusions. How does this study contribute to your project?

Useful links:

• How to Read a Paper (University of Waterloo, Canada) This is an excellent paper that teach you how to read an academic paper, how to determine if it is something to set aside, or something to read deeply. Good advice to organize your literature for the Literature Review or just reading for classes.

Criteria to evaluate sources:

• Authority : Who is the author? what is his/her credentials--what university he/she is affliliated? Is his/her area of expertise?
• Usefulness : How this source related to your topic? How current or relevant it is to your topic?
• Reliability : Does the information comes from a reliable, trusted source such as an academic journal?

Useful site - Critically Analyzing Information Sources (Cornell University Library)

• << Previous: Strategies to Find Sources
• Next: Tips for Writing Literature Reviews >>
• Last Updated: Jul 3, 2024 10:56 AM
• URL: https://lit.libguides.com/Literature-Review

The Library, Technological University of the Shannon: Midwest

• PRO Courses Guides New Tech Help Pro Expert Videos About wikiHow Pro Upgrade Sign In
• EDIT Edit this Article
• EXPLORE Tech Help Pro About Us Random Article Quizzes Request a New Article Community Dashboard This Or That Game Happiness Hub Popular Categories Arts and Entertainment Artwork Books Movies Computers and Electronics Computers Phone Skills Technology Hacks Health Men's Health Mental Health Women's Health Relationships Dating Love Relationship Issues Hobbies and Crafts Crafts Drawing Games Education & Communication Communication Skills Personal Development Studying Personal Care and Style Fashion Hair Care Personal Hygiene Youth Personal Care School Stuff Dating All Categories Arts and Entertainment Finance and Business Home and Garden Relationship Quizzes Cars & Other Vehicles Food and Entertaining Personal Care and Style Sports and Fitness Computers and Electronics Health Pets and Animals Travel Education & Communication Hobbies and Crafts Philosophy and Religion Work World Family Life Holidays and Traditions Relationships Youth
• Browse Articles
• Learn Something New
• Quizzes Hot
• Happiness Hub
• This Or That Game
• Train Your Brain
• Explore More
• Support wikiHow
• About wikiHow
• Log in / Sign up
• Education and Communications
• Studying Literature

How to Critique Literature

Last Updated: August 6, 2024 Approved

This article was co-authored by Michelle Golden, PhD . Michelle Golden is an English teacher in Athens, Georgia. She received her MA in Language Arts Teacher Education in 2008 and received her PhD in English from Georgia State University in 2015. wikiHow marks an article as reader-approved once it receives enough positive feedback. In this case, 88% of readers who voted found the article helpful, earning it our reader-approved status. This article has been viewed 245,922 times.

A literature critique, sometimes called a literary analysis or a literary critical analysis, is an examination of a piece of literature. The scope of a critique of literature may be to examine a single aspect of the work, or the work in its entirety, and involves breaking the literary piece apart into its separate components and evaluating how they fit together to accomplish the piece's purpose. Literary critiques are commonly executed by students, scholars, and literary critics, but anyone can learn how to critique literature!

Conducting a Basic Critique for Beginners

• For example, for a T-chart, list the names of the characters in one column and their actions in another as you read. After reading, you can add a column with why you think they did each action.

• This is similar to artwork. Instead of looking at a painting to figure out what the artist was communicating, just look at what is literally present in the painting. For example, what items are present in Van Gogh’s ‘’Starry Night’’? Don’t think about what he is trying to say in this painting; think about the stars, the swirling night sky, and the houses below.

• For example, ask yourself, why does the witch turn the prince into a beast in Beauty and the Beast? What does this action suggest about human nature?
• Also think about what lesson the reader can learn from the characters. What does the Beast teach us?

• The format for a thesis may look something like this: _______ is true because __________, ____________, and ___________. [3] X Research source The first blank is your opinion. For example, The Beast teaches us that we should be hospitable to everyone.
• The rest of the blanks tell why your opinion is true: The Beast teaches us that we should be hospitable to everyone because he learns from his mistake, becomes a compassionate person through his time as a beast, and regrets that he was ever rude to the witch.
• However, keep in mind that there are many different ways to form a thesis. What is most important if to make sure that your thesis includes a claim and a summary of the reasons for your claim. For example, you might phrase your thesis as “Because the Beast suffers for his actions, Beauty and the Beast argues that we should be hospitable to everyone and this theme carries through the story.”

• You can summarize these events, or use direct quotes from the book, but both need to have a page number. This prevents plagiarism.
• For example, you might use a quote that shows how the Beast is inhospitable as one of your first examples. Then, you might use other examples from the text to show the continuation of this theme.
• You do not have to use direct quotes all of the time. You can also paraphrase a passage by putting it into your own words, or summarize longer passages by describing the events in a less detailed way in your own words. No matter if you are quoting, paraphrasing, or summarizing, make sure that you include a page number for your evidence.

• Fill in the outline with topic sentences and events from the literature that support each topic sentence.

• Close the essay with a conclusion paragraph, where you summarize the essay in just a few sentences.

Applying Advanced Critical Techniques

• You should read with a pen and paper handy, as well as with a dictionary. Write down the main ideas in the margins and look up words as you go.
• Ask “how,” “why,” and “so what” questions to help you read critically.

• Evaluate elements of the work as you go, such as plot, themes, instances of character development, setting, symbols, conflicts, and point of view. Think about how these elements interact to form the main theme.

• making a list,
• mapping out a web, and
• freewriting.
• For example, while reading Pride and Prejudice, you might feel that Mr. Darcy’s character needed more development than Jane Austen gave him, or you might prefer Jane’s character to Lizzy’s and feel that she would have made a better heroine (for example, Jane shares a name with the author, giving you grounds to explore the argument that Austen might have actually preferred her). Make a list, web, or freewrite out of ideas like these.

• The thesis should present your opinion in an arguable manner accompanied by a solid reason why your opinion is true.
• The formula for a basic thesis statement might look like this: _______ is true because of __________, ____________, and ___________. [7] X Research source

• You can also take advantage of an outline to form key sentences like the hook (first line of the intro paragraph), topic and transition sentences for each body paragraph, and your conclusion.

• Look at your notes and identify any patterns you see in the text that support your thesis statement, such as how no one is ever sure what Mr. Darcy is doing until after the fact, contributing to a lack of character development in Pride and Prejudice (if you were trying to prove the validity of an argument that Mr. Darcy is not developed enough, for example).
• You must include a page number or authorial attribution anytime that you: talk about a specific event; paraphrase a quote; paraphrase a passage; or use any direct quote. You usually insert a page number in parentheses after the sentence.

• You should also address any criticism that does not agree with your thesis, as refuting the counterargument also builds your credibility.

• If you created your outline on a word processor, then you can simply fill in the outline with additional information.
• You can also treat the outline as a roadmap. Consult it as you draft your paper to make sure that you are including all of the points and examples that you have identified.

• MLA is more common for literary-based essays, but you should ask your instructor if you are not sure.

• For example, after offering a quote, you might explain what the quote means or demonstrates as well as how it supports your thesis. Do not simply paraphrase or summarize the quotes after you offer them. Summary does not show critical thinking. Instead, try to explain the significance of each quote or example to your readers.
• Try to create quote sandwiches. A quote sandwich is simply how you position a quote in an essay. You should have a sentence introducing the quote and its author, then have the quote itself, followed by one or more sentences analyzing the quote right after it.
• Make sure you include a references/works cited list with all sources you quote from or paraphrase in the essay. This prevents plagiarism.

Evaluating Literature as You Read

• Questioning the title helps in determining the main theme and contributes to a more accurate critique.

• Setting—description of the surroundings.
• Plot—events of the text.
• Characters—the motivations and depth of each character, such as how much they change or don’t change as a result of the events. Characters can be people, objects, even ideas (especially in poetry).
• Conflict—the opposition that the main character encounters and its climax and resolution.
• Themes—what the narrator observes about human nature.
• Point of view—the way that a character thinks, whether it is curious, condescending, etc. Can also be the perspective the text is told, whether in first person, third person, etc.
• Tone—the way the text feels, whether sad, happy, angry, apathetic, etc.
• Symbols—objects, people, or places that repeat consistently throughout the story and seem to represent another abstract idea.

• You may want to write down your interpretation of the work at this point, as it is an excellent springboard into a thesis statement, if you end up needing to write a paper about this text.
• You can review outside sources such as peer reviewed articles and books to verify that your interpretation is accurate or needs work.

Community Q&A

• You should always consider how the writer's techniques contribute to the overall meaning of the text. Thanks Helpful 0 Not Helpful 0
• If you don't feel you have a good grasp of all the specific components after the first reading of a literary work, read it over again, with the components in mind, before you critique. Thanks Helpful 0 Not Helpful 0
• Be careful not to summarize the entire work when you critique literature. It is your job to evaluate the work's meaning, not to outline its plot. Thanks Helpful 0 Not Helpful 0

• Remember that the critical approaches mentioned above are complicated and take time to master. Unless you are already familiar with them or are completing an assignment using them, you may want to stay away from them for now. Thanks Helpful 1 Not Helpful 0

You Might Also Like

• ↑ http://www.scholastic.com/teachers/lesson-plan/graphic-organizers-reading-comprehension
• ↑ http://writingcenter.unc.edu/handouts/thesis-statements/
• ↑ https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/545/01/
• ↑ https://www.winthrop.edu/uploadedFiles/cas/english/ReadingCritically.pdf
• ↑ http://writingcenter.unc.edu/handouts/brainstorming/

About This Article

To critique literature, start by carefully reading the text and then coming up with an opinion, like whether or not you think the author did a good job getting their main point across. Then, find evidence in the text to support your opinion, including things like quotes, events in the story, and actions the characters made. Once you have your argument and evidence support it, write your critique so that each paragraph addresses a different piece of evidence. To learn how to evaluate literature as you're reading it so it's easier to critique, scroll down! Did this summary help you? Yes No

• Send fan mail to authors

Reader Success Stories

Jun 2, 2018

Did this article help you?

Jan 16, 2017

Monica Pinto

Aug 5, 2016

Tran Van Phuoc

Oct 30, 2016

Featured Articles

Trending Articles

Watch Articles

• Terms of Use
• Privacy Policy
• Do Not Sell or Share My Info
• Not Selling Info

wikiHow Tech Help Pro:

Develop the tech skills you need for work and life

• UWF Libraries

Literature Review: Conducting & Writing

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

Sample Lit Reviews from Communication Arts

Have an exemplary literature review.

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

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

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

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

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

Warning: The NCBI web site requires JavaScript to function. more...

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
• Browse Titles

NCBI Bookshelf. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.

Lau F, Kuziemsky C, editors. Handbook of eHealth Evaluation: An Evidence-based Approach [Internet]. Victoria (BC): University of Victoria; 2017 Feb 27.

Handbook of eHealth Evaluation: An Evidence-based Approach [Internet].

Chapter 9 methods for literature reviews.

Guy Paré and Spyros Kitsiou .

9.1. Introduction

Literature reviews play a critical role in scholarship because science remains, first and foremost, a cumulative endeavour ( vom Brocke et al., 2009 ). As in any academic discipline, rigorous knowledge syntheses are becoming indispensable in keeping up with an exponentially growing eHealth literature, assisting practitioners, academics, and graduate students in finding, evaluating, and synthesizing the contents of many empirical and conceptual papers. Among other methods, literature reviews are essential for: (a) identifying what has been written on a subject or topic; (b) determining the extent to which a specific research area reveals any interpretable trends or patterns; (c) aggregating empirical findings related to a narrow research question to support evidence-based practice; (d) generating new frameworks and theories; and (e) identifying topics or questions requiring more investigation ( Paré, Trudel, Jaana, & Kitsiou, 2015 ).

Literature reviews can take two major forms. The most prevalent one is the “literature review” or “background” section within a journal paper or a chapter in a graduate thesis. This section synthesizes the extant literature and usually identifies the gaps in knowledge that the empirical study addresses ( Sylvester, Tate, & Johnstone, 2013 ). It may also provide a theoretical foundation for the proposed study, substantiate the presence of the research problem, justify the research as one that contributes something new to the cumulated knowledge, or validate the methods and approaches for the proposed study ( Hart, 1998 ; Levy & Ellis, 2006 ).

The second form of literature review, which is the focus of this chapter, constitutes an original and valuable work of research in and of itself ( Paré et al., 2015 ). Rather than providing a base for a researcher’s own work, it creates a solid starting point for all members of the community interested in a particular area or topic ( Mulrow, 1987 ). The so-called “review article” is a journal-length paper which has an overarching purpose to synthesize the literature in a field, without collecting or analyzing any primary data ( Green, Johnson, & Adams, 2006 ).

When appropriately conducted, review articles represent powerful information sources for practitioners looking for state-of-the art evidence to guide their decision-making and work practices ( Paré et al., 2015 ). Further, high-quality reviews become frequently cited pieces of work which researchers seek out as a first clear outline of the literature when undertaking empirical studies ( Cooper, 1988 ; Rowe, 2014 ). Scholars who track and gauge the impact of articles have found that review papers are cited and downloaded more often than any other type of published article ( Cronin, Ryan, & Coughlan, 2008 ; Montori, Wilczynski, Morgan, Haynes, & Hedges, 2003 ; Patsopoulos, Analatos, & Ioannidis, 2005 ). The reason for their popularity may be the fact that reading the review enables one to have an overview, if not a detailed knowledge of the area in question, as well as references to the most useful primary sources ( Cronin et al., 2008 ). Although they are not easy to conduct, the commitment to complete a review article provides a tremendous service to one’s academic community ( Paré et al., 2015 ; Petticrew & Roberts, 2006 ). Most, if not all, peer-reviewed journals in the fields of medical informatics publish review articles of some type.

The main objectives of this chapter are fourfold: (a) to provide an overview of the major steps and activities involved in conducting a stand-alone literature review; (b) to describe and contrast the different types of review articles that can contribute to the eHealth knowledge base; (c) to illustrate each review type with one or two examples from the eHealth literature; and (d) to provide a series of recommendations for prospective authors of review articles in this domain.

9.2. Overview of the Literature Review Process and Steps

As explained in Templier and Paré (2015) , there are six generic steps involved in conducting a review article:

• formulating the research question(s) and objective(s),
• searching the extant literature,
• screening for inclusion,
• assessing the quality of primary studies,
• extracting data, and
• analyzing data.

Although these steps are presented here in sequential order, one must keep in mind that the review process can be iterative and that many activities can be initiated during the planning stage and later refined during subsequent phases ( Finfgeld-Connett & Johnson, 2013 ; Kitchenham & Charters, 2007 ).

Formulating the research question(s) and objective(s): As a first step, members of the review team must appropriately justify the need for the review itself ( Petticrew & Roberts, 2006 ), identify the review’s main objective(s) ( Okoli & Schabram, 2010 ), and define the concepts or variables at the heart of their synthesis ( Cooper & Hedges, 2009 ; Webster & Watson, 2002 ). Importantly, they also need to articulate the research question(s) they propose to investigate ( Kitchenham & Charters, 2007 ). In this regard, we concur with Jesson, Matheson, and Lacey (2011) that clearly articulated research questions are key ingredients that guide the entire review methodology; they underscore the type of information that is needed, inform the search for and selection of relevant literature, and guide or orient the subsequent analysis. Searching the extant literature: The next step consists of searching the literature and making decisions about the suitability of material to be considered in the review ( Cooper, 1988 ). There exist three main coverage strategies. First, exhaustive coverage means an effort is made to be as comprehensive as possible in order to ensure that all relevant studies, published and unpublished, are included in the review and, thus, conclusions are based on this all-inclusive knowledge base. The second type of coverage consists of presenting materials that are representative of most other works in a given field or area. Often authors who adopt this strategy will search for relevant articles in a small number of top-tier journals in a field ( Paré et al., 2015 ). In the third strategy, the review team concentrates on prior works that have been central or pivotal to a particular topic. This may include empirical studies or conceptual papers that initiated a line of investigation, changed how problems or questions were framed, introduced new methods or concepts, or engendered important debate ( Cooper, 1988 ). Screening for inclusion: The following step consists of evaluating the applicability of the material identified in the preceding step ( Levy & Ellis, 2006 ; vom Brocke et al., 2009 ). Once a group of potential studies has been identified, members of the review team must screen them to determine their relevance ( Petticrew & Roberts, 2006 ). A set of predetermined rules provides a basis for including or excluding certain studies. This exercise requires a significant investment on the part of researchers, who must ensure enhanced objectivity and avoid biases or mistakes. As discussed later in this chapter, for certain types of reviews there must be at least two independent reviewers involved in the screening process and a procedure to resolve disagreements must also be in place ( Liberati et al., 2009 ; Shea et al., 2009 ). Assessing the quality of primary studies: In addition to screening material for inclusion, members of the review team may need to assess the scientific quality of the selected studies, that is, appraise the rigour of the research design and methods. Such formal assessment, which is usually conducted independently by at least two coders, helps members of the review team refine which studies to include in the final sample, determine whether or not the differences in quality may affect their conclusions, or guide how they analyze the data and interpret the findings ( Petticrew & Roberts, 2006 ). Ascribing quality scores to each primary study or considering through domain-based evaluations which study components have or have not been designed and executed appropriately makes it possible to reflect on the extent to which the selected study addresses possible biases and maximizes validity ( Shea et al., 2009 ). Extracting data: The following step involves gathering or extracting applicable information from each primary study included in the sample and deciding what is relevant to the problem of interest ( Cooper & Hedges, 2009 ). Indeed, the type of data that should be recorded mainly depends on the initial research questions ( Okoli & Schabram, 2010 ). However, important information may also be gathered about how, when, where and by whom the primary study was conducted, the research design and methods, or qualitative/quantitative results ( Cooper & Hedges, 2009 ). Analyzing and synthesizing data : As a final step, members of the review team must collate, summarize, aggregate, organize, and compare the evidence extracted from the included studies. The extracted data must be presented in a meaningful way that suggests a new contribution to the extant literature ( Jesson et al., 2011 ). Webster and Watson (2002) warn researchers that literature reviews should be much more than lists of papers and should provide a coherent lens to make sense of extant knowledge on a given topic. There exist several methods and techniques for synthesizing quantitative (e.g., frequency analysis, meta-analysis) and qualitative (e.g., grounded theory, narrative analysis, meta-ethnography) evidence ( Dixon-Woods, Agarwal, Jones, Young, & Sutton, 2005 ; Thomas & Harden, 2008 ).

9.3. Types of Review Articles and Brief Illustrations

EHealth researchers have at their disposal a number of approaches and methods for making sense out of existing literature, all with the purpose of casting current research findings into historical contexts or explaining contradictions that might exist among a set of primary research studies conducted on a particular topic. Our classification scheme is largely inspired from Paré and colleagues’ (2015) typology. Below we present and illustrate those review types that we feel are central to the growth and development of the eHealth domain.

9.3.1. Narrative Reviews

The narrative review is the “traditional” way of reviewing the extant literature and is skewed towards a qualitative interpretation of prior knowledge ( Sylvester et al., 2013 ). Put simply, a narrative review attempts to summarize or synthesize what has been written on a particular topic but does not seek generalization or cumulative knowledge from what is reviewed ( Davies, 2000 ; Green et al., 2006 ). Instead, the review team often undertakes the task of accumulating and synthesizing the literature to demonstrate the value of a particular point of view ( Baumeister & Leary, 1997 ). As such, reviewers may selectively ignore or limit the attention paid to certain studies in order to make a point. In this rather unsystematic approach, the selection of information from primary articles is subjective, lacks explicit criteria for inclusion and can lead to biased interpretations or inferences ( Green et al., 2006 ). There are several narrative reviews in the particular eHealth domain, as in all fields, which follow such an unstructured approach ( Silva et al., 2015 ; Paul et al., 2015 ).

Despite these criticisms, this type of review can be very useful in gathering together a volume of literature in a specific subject area and synthesizing it. As mentioned above, its primary purpose is to provide the reader with a comprehensive background for understanding current knowledge and highlighting the significance of new research ( Cronin et al., 2008 ). Faculty like to use narrative reviews in the classroom because they are often more up to date than textbooks, provide a single source for students to reference, and expose students to peer-reviewed literature ( Green et al., 2006 ). For researchers, narrative reviews can inspire research ideas by identifying gaps or inconsistencies in a body of knowledge, thus helping researchers to determine research questions or formulate hypotheses. Importantly, narrative reviews can also be used as educational articles to bring practitioners up to date with certain topics of issues ( Green et al., 2006 ).

Recently, there have been several efforts to introduce more rigour in narrative reviews that will elucidate common pitfalls and bring changes into their publication standards. Information systems researchers, among others, have contributed to advancing knowledge on how to structure a “traditional” review. For instance, Levy and Ellis (2006) proposed a generic framework for conducting such reviews. Their model follows the systematic data processing approach comprised of three steps, namely: (a) literature search and screening; (b) data extraction and analysis; and (c) writing the literature review. They provide detailed and very helpful instructions on how to conduct each step of the review process. As another methodological contribution, vom Brocke et al. (2009) offered a series of guidelines for conducting literature reviews, with a particular focus on how to search and extract the relevant body of knowledge. Last, Bandara, Miskon, and Fielt (2011) proposed a structured, predefined and tool-supported method to identify primary studies within a feasible scope, extract relevant content from identified articles, synthesize and analyze the findings, and effectively write and present the results of the literature review. We highly recommend that prospective authors of narrative reviews consult these useful sources before embarking on their work.

Darlow and Wen (2015) provide a good example of a highly structured narrative review in the eHealth field. These authors synthesized published articles that describe the development process of mobile health ( m-health ) interventions for patients’ cancer care self-management. As in most narrative reviews, the scope of the research questions being investigated is broad: (a) how development of these systems are carried out; (b) which methods are used to investigate these systems; and (c) what conclusions can be drawn as a result of the development of these systems. To provide clear answers to these questions, a literature search was conducted on six electronic databases and Google Scholar . The search was performed using several terms and free text words, combining them in an appropriate manner. Four inclusion and three exclusion criteria were utilized during the screening process. Both authors independently reviewed each of the identified articles to determine eligibility and extract study information. A flow diagram shows the number of studies identified, screened, and included or excluded at each stage of study selection. In terms of contributions, this review provides a series of practical recommendations for m-health intervention development.

9.3.2. Descriptive or Mapping Reviews

The primary goal of a descriptive review is to determine the extent to which a body of knowledge in a particular research topic reveals any interpretable pattern or trend with respect to pre-existing propositions, theories, methodologies or findings ( King & He, 2005 ; Paré et al., 2015 ). In contrast with narrative reviews, descriptive reviews follow a systematic and transparent procedure, including searching, screening and classifying studies ( Petersen, Vakkalanka, & Kuzniarz, 2015 ). Indeed, structured search methods are used to form a representative sample of a larger group of published works ( Paré et al., 2015 ). Further, authors of descriptive reviews extract from each study certain characteristics of interest, such as publication year, research methods, data collection techniques, and direction or strength of research outcomes (e.g., positive, negative, or non-significant) in the form of frequency analysis to produce quantitative results ( Sylvester et al., 2013 ). In essence, each study included in a descriptive review is treated as the unit of analysis and the published literature as a whole provides a database from which the authors attempt to identify any interpretable trends or draw overall conclusions about the merits of existing conceptualizations, propositions, methods or findings ( Paré et al., 2015 ). In doing so, a descriptive review may claim that its findings represent the state of the art in a particular domain ( King & He, 2005 ).

In the fields of health sciences and medical informatics, reviews that focus on examining the range, nature and evolution of a topic area are described by Anderson, Allen, Peckham, and Goodwin (2008) as mapping reviews . Like descriptive reviews, the research questions are generic and usually relate to publication patterns and trends. There is no preconceived plan to systematically review all of the literature although this can be done. Instead, researchers often present studies that are representative of most works published in a particular area and they consider a specific time frame to be mapped.

An example of this approach in the eHealth domain is offered by DeShazo, Lavallie, and Wolf (2009). The purpose of this descriptive or mapping review was to characterize publication trends in the medical informatics literature over a 20-year period (1987 to 2006). To achieve this ambitious objective, the authors performed a bibliometric analysis of medical informatics citations indexed in medline using publication trends, journal frequencies, impact factors, Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) term frequencies, and characteristics of citations. Findings revealed that there were over 77,000 medical informatics articles published during the covered period in numerous journals and that the average annual growth rate was 12%. The MeSH term analysis also suggested a strong interdisciplinary trend. Finally, average impact scores increased over time with two notable growth periods. Overall, patterns in research outputs that seem to characterize the historic trends and current components of the field of medical informatics suggest it may be a maturing discipline (DeShazo et al., 2009).

9.3.3. Scoping Reviews

Scoping reviews attempt to provide an initial indication of the potential size and nature of the extant literature on an emergent topic (Arksey & O’Malley, 2005; Daudt, van Mossel, & Scott, 2013 ; Levac, Colquhoun, & O’Brien, 2010). A scoping review may be conducted to examine the extent, range and nature of research activities in a particular area, determine the value of undertaking a full systematic review (discussed next), or identify research gaps in the extant literature ( Paré et al., 2015 ). In line with their main objective, scoping reviews usually conclude with the presentation of a detailed research agenda for future works along with potential implications for both practice and research.

Unlike narrative and descriptive reviews, the whole point of scoping the field is to be as comprehensive as possible, including grey literature (Arksey & O’Malley, 2005). Inclusion and exclusion criteria must be established to help researchers eliminate studies that are not aligned with the research questions. It is also recommended that at least two independent coders review abstracts yielded from the search strategy and then the full articles for study selection ( Daudt et al., 2013 ). The synthesized evidence from content or thematic analysis is relatively easy to present in tabular form (Arksey & O’Malley, 2005; Thomas & Harden, 2008 ).

One of the most highly cited scoping reviews in the eHealth domain was published by Archer, Fevrier-Thomas, Lokker, McKibbon, and Straus (2011) . These authors reviewed the existing literature on personal health record ( phr ) systems including design, functionality, implementation, applications, outcomes, and benefits. Seven databases were searched from 1985 to March 2010. Several search terms relating to phr s were used during this process. Two authors independently screened titles and abstracts to determine inclusion status. A second screen of full-text articles, again by two independent members of the research team, ensured that the studies described phr s. All in all, 130 articles met the criteria and their data were extracted manually into a database. The authors concluded that although there is a large amount of survey, observational, cohort/panel, and anecdotal evidence of phr benefits and satisfaction for patients, more research is needed to evaluate the results of phr implementations. Their in-depth analysis of the literature signalled that there is little solid evidence from randomized controlled trials or other studies through the use of phr s. Hence, they suggested that more research is needed that addresses the current lack of understanding of optimal functionality and usability of these systems, and how they can play a beneficial role in supporting patient self-management ( Archer et al., 2011 ).

9.3.4. Forms of Aggregative Reviews

Healthcare providers, practitioners, and policy-makers are nowadays overwhelmed with large volumes of information, including research-based evidence from numerous clinical trials and evaluation studies, assessing the effectiveness of health information technologies and interventions ( Ammenwerth & de Keizer, 2004 ; Deshazo et al., 2009 ). It is unrealistic to expect that all these disparate actors will have the time, skills, and necessary resources to identify the available evidence in the area of their expertise and consider it when making decisions. Systematic reviews that involve the rigorous application of scientific strategies aimed at limiting subjectivity and bias (i.e., systematic and random errors) can respond to this challenge.

Systematic reviews attempt to aggregate, appraise, and synthesize in a single source all empirical evidence that meet a set of previously specified eligibility criteria in order to answer a clearly formulated and often narrow research question on a particular topic of interest to support evidence-based practice ( Liberati et al., 2009 ). They adhere closely to explicit scientific principles ( Liberati et al., 2009 ) and rigorous methodological guidelines (Higgins & Green, 2008) aimed at reducing random and systematic errors that can lead to deviations from the truth in results or inferences. The use of explicit methods allows systematic reviews to aggregate a large body of research evidence, assess whether effects or relationships are in the same direction and of the same general magnitude, explain possible inconsistencies between study results, and determine the strength of the overall evidence for every outcome of interest based on the quality of included studies and the general consistency among them ( Cook, Mulrow, & Haynes, 1997 ). The main procedures of a systematic review involve:

• Formulating a review question and developing a search strategy based on explicit inclusion criteria for the identification of eligible studies (usually described in the context of a detailed review protocol).
• Searching for eligible studies using multiple databases and information sources, including grey literature sources, without any language restrictions.
• Selecting studies, extracting data, and assessing risk of bias in a duplicate manner using two independent reviewers to avoid random or systematic errors in the process.
• Analyzing data using quantitative or qualitative methods.
• Presenting results in summary of findings tables.
• Interpreting results and drawing conclusions.

Many systematic reviews, but not all, use statistical methods to combine the results of independent studies into a single quantitative estimate or summary effect size. Known as meta-analyses , these reviews use specific data extraction and statistical techniques (e.g., network, frequentist, or Bayesian meta-analyses) to calculate from each study by outcome of interest an effect size along with a confidence interval that reflects the degree of uncertainty behind the point estimate of effect ( Borenstein, Hedges, Higgins, & Rothstein, 2009 ; Deeks, Higgins, & Altman, 2008 ). Subsequently, they use fixed or random-effects analysis models to combine the results of the included studies, assess statistical heterogeneity, and calculate a weighted average of the effect estimates from the different studies, taking into account their sample sizes. The summary effect size is a value that reflects the average magnitude of the intervention effect for a particular outcome of interest or, more generally, the strength of a relationship between two variables across all studies included in the systematic review. By statistically combining data from multiple studies, meta-analyses can create more precise and reliable estimates of intervention effects than those derived from individual studies alone, when these are examined independently as discrete sources of information.

The review by Gurol-Urganci, de Jongh, Vodopivec-Jamsek, Atun, and Car (2013) on the effects of mobile phone messaging reminders for attendance at healthcare appointments is an illustrative example of a high-quality systematic review with meta-analysis. Missed appointments are a major cause of inefficiency in healthcare delivery with substantial monetary costs to health systems. These authors sought to assess whether mobile phone-based appointment reminders delivered through Short Message Service ( sms ) or Multimedia Messaging Service ( mms ) are effective in improving rates of patient attendance and reducing overall costs. To this end, they conducted a comprehensive search on multiple databases using highly sensitive search strategies without language or publication-type restrictions to identify all rct s that are eligible for inclusion. In order to minimize the risk of omitting eligible studies not captured by the original search, they supplemented all electronic searches with manual screening of trial registers and references contained in the included studies. Study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessments were performed inde­­pen­dently by two coders using standardized methods to ensure consistency and to eliminate potential errors. Findings from eight rct s involving 6,615 participants were pooled into meta-analyses to calculate the magnitude of effects that mobile text message reminders have on the rate of attendance at healthcare appointments compared to no reminders and phone call reminders.

Meta-analyses are regarded as powerful tools for deriving meaningful conclusions. However, there are situations in which it is neither reasonable nor appropriate to pool studies together using meta-analytic methods simply because there is extensive clinical heterogeneity between the included studies or variation in measurement tools, comparisons, or outcomes of interest. In these cases, systematic reviews can use qualitative synthesis methods such as vote counting, content analysis, classification schemes and tabulations, as an alternative approach to narratively synthesize the results of the independent studies included in the review. This form of review is known as qualitative systematic review.

A rigorous example of one such review in the eHealth domain is presented by Mickan, Atherton, Roberts, Heneghan, and Tilson (2014) on the use of handheld computers by healthcare professionals and their impact on access to information and clinical decision-making. In line with the methodological guide­lines for systematic reviews, these authors: (a) developed and registered with prospero ( www.crd.york.ac.uk/ prospero / ) an a priori review protocol; (b) conducted comprehensive searches for eligible studies using multiple databases and other supplementary strategies (e.g., forward searches); and (c) subsequently carried out study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessments in a duplicate manner to eliminate potential errors in the review process. Heterogeneity between the included studies in terms of reported outcomes and measures precluded the use of meta-analytic methods. To this end, the authors resorted to using narrative analysis and synthesis to describe the effectiveness of handheld computers on accessing information for clinical knowledge, adherence to safety and clinical quality guidelines, and diagnostic decision-making.

In recent years, the number of systematic reviews in the field of health informatics has increased considerably. Systematic reviews with discordant findings can cause great confusion and make it difficult for decision-makers to interpret the review-level evidence ( Moher, 2013 ). Therefore, there is a growing need for appraisal and synthesis of prior systematic reviews to ensure that decision-making is constantly informed by the best available accumulated evidence. Umbrella reviews , also known as overviews of systematic reviews, are tertiary types of evidence synthesis that aim to accomplish this; that is, they aim to compare and contrast findings from multiple systematic reviews and meta-analyses ( Becker & Oxman, 2008 ). Umbrella reviews generally adhere to the same principles and rigorous methodological guidelines used in systematic reviews. However, the unit of analysis in umbrella reviews is the systematic review rather than the primary study ( Becker & Oxman, 2008 ). Unlike systematic reviews that have a narrow focus of inquiry, umbrella reviews focus on broader research topics for which there are several potential interventions ( Smith, Devane, Begley, & Clarke, 2011 ). A recent umbrella review on the effects of home telemonitoring interventions for patients with heart failure critically appraised, compared, and synthesized evidence from 15 systematic reviews to investigate which types of home telemonitoring technologies and forms of interventions are more effective in reducing mortality and hospital admissions ( Kitsiou, Paré, & Jaana, 2015 ).

9.3.5. Realist Reviews

Realist reviews are theory-driven interpretative reviews developed to inform, enhance, or supplement conventional systematic reviews by making sense of heterogeneous evidence about complex interventions applied in diverse contexts in a way that informs policy decision-making ( Greenhalgh, Wong, Westhorp, & Pawson, 2011 ). They originated from criticisms of positivist systematic reviews which centre on their “simplistic” underlying assumptions ( Oates, 2011 ). As explained above, systematic reviews seek to identify causation. Such logic is appropriate for fields like medicine and education where findings of randomized controlled trials can be aggregated to see whether a new treatment or intervention does improve outcomes. However, many argue that it is not possible to establish such direct causal links between interventions and outcomes in fields such as social policy, management, and information systems where for any intervention there is unlikely to be a regular or consistent outcome ( Oates, 2011 ; Pawson, 2006 ; Rousseau, Manning, & Denyer, 2008 ).

To circumvent these limitations, Pawson, Greenhalgh, Harvey, and Walshe (2005) have proposed a new approach for synthesizing knowledge that seeks to unpack the mechanism of how “complex interventions” work in particular contexts. The basic research question — what works? — which is usually associated with systematic reviews changes to: what is it about this intervention that works, for whom, in what circumstances, in what respects and why? Realist reviews have no particular preference for either quantitative or qualitative evidence. As a theory-building approach, a realist review usually starts by articulating likely underlying mechanisms and then scrutinizes available evidence to find out whether and where these mechanisms are applicable ( Shepperd et al., 2009 ). Primary studies found in the extant literature are viewed as case studies which can test and modify the initial theories ( Rousseau et al., 2008 ).

The main objective pursued in the realist review conducted by Otte-Trojel, de Bont, Rundall, and van de Klundert (2014) was to examine how patient portals contribute to health service delivery and patient outcomes. The specific goals were to investigate how outcomes are produced and, most importantly, how variations in outcomes can be explained. The research team started with an exploratory review of background documents and research studies to identify ways in which patient portals may contribute to health service delivery and patient outcomes. The authors identified six main ways which represent “educated guesses” to be tested against the data in the evaluation studies. These studies were identified through a formal and systematic search in four databases between 2003 and 2013. Two members of the research team selected the articles using a pre-established list of inclusion and exclusion criteria and following a two-step procedure. The authors then extracted data from the selected articles and created several tables, one for each outcome category. They organized information to bring forward those mechanisms where patient portals contribute to outcomes and the variation in outcomes across different contexts.

9.3.6. Critical Reviews

Lastly, critical reviews aim to provide a critical evaluation and interpretive analysis of existing literature on a particular topic of interest to reveal strengths, weaknesses, contradictions, controversies, inconsistencies, and/or other important issues with respect to theories, hypotheses, research methods or results ( Baumeister & Leary, 1997 ; Kirkevold, 1997 ). Unlike other review types, critical reviews attempt to take a reflective account of the research that has been done in a particular area of interest, and assess its credibility by using appraisal instruments or critical interpretive methods. In this way, critical reviews attempt to constructively inform other scholars about the weaknesses of prior research and strengthen knowledge development by giving focus and direction to studies for further improvement ( Kirkevold, 1997 ).

Kitsiou, Paré, and Jaana (2013) provide an example of a critical review that assessed the methodological quality of prior systematic reviews of home telemonitoring studies for chronic patients. The authors conducted a comprehensive search on multiple databases to identify eligible reviews and subsequently used a validated instrument to conduct an in-depth quality appraisal. Results indicate that the majority of systematic reviews in this particular area suffer from important methodological flaws and biases that impair their internal validity and limit their usefulness for clinical and decision-making purposes. To this end, they provide a number of recommendations to strengthen knowledge development towards improving the design and execution of future reviews on home telemonitoring.

9.4. Summary

Table 9.1 outlines the main types of literature reviews that were described in the previous sub-sections and summarizes the main characteristics that distinguish one review type from another. It also includes key references to methodological guidelines and useful sources that can be used by eHealth scholars and researchers for planning and developing reviews.

Typology of Literature Reviews (adapted from Paré et al., 2015).

As shown in Table 9.1 , each review type addresses different kinds of research questions or objectives, which subsequently define and dictate the methods and approaches that need to be used to achieve the overarching goal(s) of the review. For example, in the case of narrative reviews, there is greater flexibility in searching and synthesizing articles ( Green et al., 2006 ). Researchers are often relatively free to use a diversity of approaches to search, identify, and select relevant scientific articles, describe their operational characteristics, present how the individual studies fit together, and formulate conclusions. On the other hand, systematic reviews are characterized by their high level of systematicity, rigour, and use of explicit methods, based on an “a priori” review plan that aims to minimize bias in the analysis and synthesis process (Higgins & Green, 2008). Some reviews are exploratory in nature (e.g., scoping/mapping reviews), whereas others may be conducted to discover patterns (e.g., descriptive reviews) or involve a synthesis approach that may include the critical analysis of prior research ( Paré et al., 2015 ). Hence, in order to select the most appropriate type of review, it is critical to know before embarking on a review project, why the research synthesis is conducted and what type of methods are best aligned with the pursued goals.

9.5. Concluding Remarks

In light of the increased use of evidence-based practice and research generating stronger evidence ( Grady et al., 2011 ; Lyden et al., 2013 ), review articles have become essential tools for summarizing, synthesizing, integrating or critically appraising prior knowledge in the eHealth field. As mentioned earlier, when rigorously conducted review articles represent powerful information sources for eHealth scholars and practitioners looking for state-of-the-art evidence. The typology of literature reviews we used herein will allow eHealth researchers, graduate students and practitioners to gain a better understanding of the similarities and differences between review types.

We must stress that this classification scheme does not privilege any specific type of review as being of higher quality than another ( Paré et al., 2015 ). As explained above, each type of review has its own strengths and limitations. Having said that, we realize that the methodological rigour of any review — be it qualitative, quantitative or mixed — is a critical aspect that should be considered seriously by prospective authors. In the present context, the notion of rigour refers to the reliability and validity of the review process described in section 9.2. For one thing, reliability is related to the reproducibility of the review process and steps, which is facilitated by a comprehensive documentation of the literature search process, extraction, coding and analysis performed in the review. Whether the search is comprehensive or not, whether it involves a methodical approach for data extraction and synthesis or not, it is important that the review documents in an explicit and transparent manner the steps and approach that were used in the process of its development. Next, validity characterizes the degree to which the review process was conducted appropriately. It goes beyond documentation and reflects decisions related to the selection of the sources, the search terms used, the period of time covered, the articles selected in the search, and the application of backward and forward searches ( vom Brocke et al., 2009 ). In short, the rigour of any review article is reflected by the explicitness of its methods (i.e., transparency) and the soundness of the approach used. We refer those interested in the concepts of rigour and quality to the work of Templier and Paré (2015) which offers a detailed set of methodological guidelines for conducting and evaluating various types of review articles.

To conclude, our main objective in this chapter was to demystify the various types of literature reviews that are central to the continuous development of the eHealth field. It is our hope that our descriptive account will serve as a valuable source for those conducting, evaluating or using reviews in this important and growing domain.

• Ammenwerth E., de Keizer N. An inventory of evaluation studies of information technology in health care. Trends in evaluation research, 1982-2002. International Journal of Medical Informatics. 2004; 44 (1):44–56. [ PubMed : 15778794 ]
• Anderson S., Allen P., Peckham S., Goodwin N. Asking the right questions: scoping studies in the commissioning of research on the organisation and delivery of health services. Health Research Policy and Systems. 2008; 6 (7):1–12. [ PMC free article : PMC2500008 ] [ PubMed : 18613961 ] [ CrossRef ]
• Archer N., Fevrier-Thomas U., Lokker C., McKibbon K. A., Straus S.E. Personal health records: a scoping review. Journal of American Medical Informatics Association. 2011; 18 (4):515–522. [ PMC free article : PMC3128401 ] [ PubMed : 21672914 ]
• Arksey H., O’Malley L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology. 2005; 8 (1):19–32.
• A systematic, tool-supported method for conducting literature reviews in information systems. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 19th European Conference on Information Systems ( ecis 2011); June 9 to 11; Helsinki, Finland. 2011.
• Baumeister R. F., Leary M.R. Writing narrative literature reviews. Review of General Psychology. 1997; 1 (3):311–320.
• Becker L. A., Oxman A.D. In: Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Higgins J. P. T., Green S., editors. Hoboken, nj : John Wiley & Sons, Ltd; 2008. Overviews of reviews; pp. 607–631.
• Borenstein M., Hedges L., Higgins J., Rothstein H. Introduction to meta-analysis. Hoboken, nj : John Wiley & Sons Inc; 2009.
• Cook D. J., Mulrow C. D., Haynes B. Systematic reviews: Synthesis of best evidence for clinical decisions. Annals of Internal Medicine. 1997; 126 (5):376–380. [ PubMed : 9054282 ]
• Cooper H., Hedges L.V. In: The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis. 2nd ed. Cooper H., Hedges L. V., Valentine J. C., editors. New York: Russell Sage Foundation; 2009. Research synthesis as a scientific process; pp. 3–17.
• Cooper H. M. Organizing knowledge syntheses: A taxonomy of literature reviews. Knowledge in Society. 1988; 1 (1):104–126.
• Cronin P., Ryan F., Coughlan M. Undertaking a literature review: a step-by-step approach. British Journal of Nursing. 2008; 17 (1):38–43. [ PubMed : 18399395 ]
• Darlow S., Wen K.Y. Development testing of mobile health interventions for cancer patient self-management: A review. Health Informatics Journal. 2015 (online before print). [ PubMed : 25916831 ] [ CrossRef ]
• Daudt H. M., van Mossel C., Scott S.J. Enhancing the scoping study methodology: a large, inter-professional team’s experience with Arksey and O’Malley’s framework. bmc Medical Research Methodology. 2013; 13 :48. [ PMC free article : PMC3614526 ] [ PubMed : 23522333 ] [ CrossRef ]
• Davies P. The relevance of systematic reviews to educational policy and practice. Oxford Review of Education. 2000; 26 (3-4):365–378.
• Deeks J. J., Higgins J. P. T., Altman D.G. In: Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Higgins J. P. T., Green S., editors. Hoboken, nj : John Wiley & Sons, Ltd; 2008. Analysing data and undertaking meta-analyses; pp. 243–296.
• Deshazo J. P., Lavallie D. L., Wolf F.M. Publication trends in the medical informatics literature: 20 years of “Medical Informatics” in mesh . bmc Medical Informatics and Decision Making. 2009; 9 :7. [ PMC free article : PMC2652453 ] [ PubMed : 19159472 ] [ CrossRef ]
• Dixon-Woods M., Agarwal S., Jones D., Young B., Sutton A. Synthesising qualitative and quantitative evidence: a review of possible methods. Journal of Health Services Research and Policy. 2005; 10 (1):45–53. [ PubMed : 15667704 ]
• Finfgeld-Connett D., Johnson E.D. Literature search strategies for conducting knowledge-building and theory-generating qualitative systematic reviews. Journal of Advanced Nursing. 2013; 69 (1):194–204. [ PMC free article : PMC3424349 ] [ PubMed : 22591030 ]
• Grady B., Myers K. M., Nelson E. L., Belz N., Bennett L., Carnahan L. … Guidelines Working Group. Evidence-based practice for telemental health. Telemedicine Journal and E Health. 2011; 17 (2):131–148. [ PubMed : 21385026 ]
• Green B. N., Johnson C. D., Adams A. Writing narrative literature reviews for peer-reviewed journals: secrets of the trade. Journal of Chiropractic Medicine. 2006; 5 (3):101–117. [ PMC free article : PMC2647067 ] [ PubMed : 19674681 ]
• Greenhalgh T., Wong G., Westhorp G., Pawson R. Protocol–realist and meta-narrative evidence synthesis: evolving standards ( rameses ). bmc Medical Research Methodology. 2011; 11 :115. [ PMC free article : PMC3173389 ] [ PubMed : 21843376 ]
• Gurol-Urganci I., de Jongh T., Vodopivec-Jamsek V., Atun R., Car J. Mobile phone messaging reminders for attendance at healthcare appointments. Cochrane Database System Review. 2013; 12 cd 007458. [ PMC free article : PMC6485985 ] [ PubMed : 24310741 ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hart C. Doing a literature review: Releasing the social science research imagination. London: SAGE Publications; 1998.
• Higgins J. P. T., Green S., editors. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions: Cochrane book series. Hoboken, nj : Wiley-Blackwell; 2008.
• Jesson J., Matheson L., Lacey F.M. Doing your literature review: traditional and systematic techniques. Los Angeles & London: SAGE Publications; 2011.
• King W. R., He J. Understanding the role and methods of meta-analysis in IS research. Communications of the Association for Information Systems. 2005; 16 :1.
• Kirkevold M. Integrative nursing research — an important strategy to further the development of nursing science and nursing practice. Journal of Advanced Nursing. 1997; 25 (5):977–984. [ PubMed : 9147203 ]
• Kitchenham B., Charters S. ebse Technical Report Version 2.3. Keele & Durham. uk : Keele University & University of Durham; 2007. Guidelines for performing systematic literature reviews in software engineering.
• Kitsiou S., Paré G., Jaana M. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of home telemonitoring interventions for patients with chronic diseases: a critical assessment of their methodological quality. Journal of Medical Internet Research. 2013; 15 (7):e150. [ PMC free article : PMC3785977 ] [ PubMed : 23880072 ]
• Kitsiou S., Paré G., Jaana M. Effects of home telemonitoring interventions on patients with chronic heart failure: an overview of systematic reviews. Journal of Medical Internet Research. 2015; 17 (3):e63. [ PMC free article : PMC4376138 ] [ PubMed : 25768664 ]
• Levac D., Colquhoun H., O’Brien K. K. Scoping studies: advancing the methodology. Implementation Science. 2010; 5 (1):69. [ PMC free article : PMC2954944 ] [ PubMed : 20854677 ]
• Levy Y., Ellis T.J. A systems approach to conduct an effective literature review in support of information systems research. Informing Science. 2006; 9 :181–211.
• Liberati A., Altman D. G., Tetzlaff J., Mulrow C., Gøtzsche P. C., Ioannidis J. P. A. et al. Moher D. The prisma statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: Explanation and elaboration. Annals of Internal Medicine. 2009; 151 (4):W-65. [ PubMed : 19622512 ]
• Lyden J. R., Zickmund S. L., Bhargava T. D., Bryce C. L., Conroy M. B., Fischer G. S. et al. McTigue K. M. Implementing health information technology in a patient-centered manner: Patient experiences with an online evidence-based lifestyle intervention. Journal for Healthcare Quality. 2013; 35 (5):47–57. [ PubMed : 24004039 ]
• Mickan S., Atherton H., Roberts N. W., Heneghan C., Tilson J.K. Use of handheld computers in clinical practice: a systematic review. bmc Medical Informatics and Decision Making. 2014; 14 :56. [ PMC free article : PMC4099138 ] [ PubMed : 24998515 ]
• Moher D. The problem of duplicate systematic reviews. British Medical Journal. 2013; 347 (5040) [ PubMed : 23945367 ] [ CrossRef ]
• Montori V. M., Wilczynski N. L., Morgan D., Haynes R. B., Hedges T. Systematic reviews: a cross-sectional study of location and citation counts. bmc Medicine. 2003; 1 :2. [ PMC free article : PMC281591 ] [ PubMed : 14633274 ]
• Mulrow C. D. The medical review article: state of the science. Annals of Internal Medicine. 1987; 106 (3):485–488. [ PubMed : 3813259 ] [ CrossRef ]
• Evidence-based information systems: A decade later. Proceedings of the European Conference on Information Systems ; 2011. Retrieved from http://aisel ​.aisnet.org/cgi/viewcontent ​.cgi?article ​=1221&context ​=ecis2011 .
• Okoli C., Schabram K. A guide to conducting a systematic literature review of information systems research. ssrn Electronic Journal. 2010
• Otte-Trojel T., de Bont A., Rundall T. G., van de Klundert J. How outcomes are achieved through patient portals: a realist review. Journal of American Medical Informatics Association. 2014; 21 (4):751–757. [ PMC free article : PMC4078283 ] [ PubMed : 24503882 ]
• Paré G., Trudel M.-C., Jaana M., Kitsiou S. Synthesizing information systems knowledge: A typology of literature reviews. Information & Management. 2015; 52 (2):183–199.
• Patsopoulos N. A., Analatos A. A., Ioannidis J.P. A. Relative citation impact of various study designs in the health sciences. Journal of the American Medical Association. 2005; 293 (19):2362–2366. [ PubMed : 15900006 ]
• Paul M. M., Greene C. M., Newton-Dame R., Thorpe L. E., Perlman S. E., McVeigh K. H., Gourevitch M.N. The state of population health surveillance using electronic health records: A narrative review. Population Health Management. 2015; 18 (3):209–216. [ PubMed : 25608033 ]
• Pawson R. Evidence-based policy: a realist perspective. London: SAGE Publications; 2006.
• Pawson R., Greenhalgh T., Harvey G., Walshe K. Realist review—a new method of systematic review designed for complex policy interventions. Journal of Health Services Research & Policy. 2005; 10 (Suppl 1):21–34. [ PubMed : 16053581 ]
• Petersen K., Vakkalanka S., Kuzniarz L. Guidelines for conducting systematic mapping studies in software engineering: An update. Information and Software Technology. 2015; 64 :1–18.
• Petticrew M., Roberts H. Systematic reviews in the social sciences: A practical guide. Malden, ma : Blackwell Publishing Co; 2006.
• Rousseau D. M., Manning J., Denyer D. Evidence in management and organizational science: Assembling the field’s full weight of scientific knowledge through syntheses. The Academy of Management Annals. 2008; 2 (1):475–515.
• Rowe F. What literature review is not: diversity, boundaries and recommendations. European Journal of Information Systems. 2014; 23 (3):241–255.
• Shea B. J., Hamel C., Wells G. A., Bouter L. M., Kristjansson E., Grimshaw J. et al. Boers M. amstar is a reliable and valid measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 2009; 62 (10):1013–1020. [ PubMed : 19230606 ]
• Shepperd S., Lewin S., Straus S., Clarke M., Eccles M. P., Fitzpatrick R. et al. Sheikh A. Can we systematically review studies that evaluate complex interventions? PLoS Medicine. 2009; 6 (8):e1000086. [ PMC free article : PMC2717209 ] [ PubMed : 19668360 ]
• Silva B. M., Rodrigues J. J., de la Torre Díez I., López-Coronado M., Saleem K. Mobile-health: A review of current state in 2015. Journal of Biomedical Informatics. 2015; 56 :265–272. [ PubMed : 26071682 ]
• Smith V., Devane D., Begley C., Clarke M. Methodology in conducting a systematic review of systematic reviews of healthcare interventions. bmc Medical Research Methodology. 2011; 11 (1):15. [ PMC free article : PMC3039637 ] [ PubMed : 21291558 ]
• Sylvester A., Tate M., Johnstone D. Beyond synthesis: re-presenting heterogeneous research literature. Behaviour & Information Technology. 2013; 32 (12):1199–1215.
• Templier M., Paré G. A framework for guiding and evaluating literature reviews. Communications of the Association for Information Systems. 2015; 37 (6):112–137.
• Thomas J., Harden A. Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews. bmc Medical Research Methodology. 2008; 8 (1):45. [ PMC free article : PMC2478656 ] [ PubMed : 18616818 ]
• Reconstructing the giant: on the importance of rigour in documenting the literature search process. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 17th European Conference on Information Systems ( ecis 2009); Verona, Italy. 2009.
• Webster J., Watson R.T. Analyzing the past to prepare for the future: Writing a literature review. Management Information Systems Quarterly. 2002; 26 (2):11.
• Whitlock E. P., Lin J. S., Chou R., Shekelle P., Robinson K.A. Using existing systematic reviews in complex systematic reviews. Annals of Internal Medicine. 2008; 148 (10):776–782. [ PubMed : 18490690 ]

This publication is licensed under a Creative Commons License, Attribution-Noncommercial 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC 4.0): see https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

• Cite this Page Paré G, Kitsiou S. Chapter 9 Methods for Literature Reviews. In: Lau F, Kuziemsky C, editors. Handbook of eHealth Evaluation: An Evidence-based Approach [Internet]. Victoria (BC): University of Victoria; 2017 Feb 27.
• PDF version of this title (4.5M)
• Disable Glossary Links

In this Page

• Introduction
• Overview of the Literature Review Process and Steps
• Types of Review Articles and Brief Illustrations
• Concluding Remarks

Related information

• PMC PubMed Central citations
• PubMed Links to PubMed

Recent Activity

• Chapter 9 Methods for Literature Reviews - Handbook of eHealth Evaluation: An Ev... Chapter 9 Methods for Literature Reviews - Handbook of eHealth Evaluation: An Evidence-based Approach

Your browsing activity is empty.

Activity recording is turned off.

Turn recording back on

Connect with NLM

National Library of Medicine 8600 Rockville Pike Bethesda, MD 20894

Web Policies FOIA HHS Vulnerability Disclosure

Help Accessibility Careers

What Is the Infrastructure of Critique?

F rom Israel blockading electricity to the train derailment in East Palestine, Ohio , we live in a moment of infrastructural collapse. Large-scale public works projects have been privatized, meaning that the systems of circulation that enable day-to-day life—from pipelines to data clouds, drinking water to education—are crumbling at increasingly accelerated rates. Now is “a scene shaped by the infrastructural breakdown of modernist practices,” writes Lauren Berlant. 1 Thus, in the political and cultural imaginary, infrastructure has gone from perennial bit player to a starring role.

Not only is political attention to public infrastructure increasing, but also scholarly attention to literary infrastructure. Such work investigates material infrastructure (the object that generates critique) as well as generating a method of critique grounded in infrastructural thinking (investigating how and under what conditions literary critique is produced).

When I say that infrastructure itself is the object of critique, I mean that an increasing number of critics are interested in the literary life of material infrastructures. Books like Julia Lee’s The Racial Railroad and Jessica Hurley’s Infrastructures of Apocalypse , for example, consider how railroads and nuclear power create new narrative logics and literary forms. Lee and Hurley underline how systems and hierarchies are reproduced through the infrastructures that we depend on in our daily lives.

But infrastructure has also become a method for thinking about how and where we produce literary critique. Consider a triumvirate of books published last year: Alexander Manshel’s Writing Backwards , Dan Sinykin’s Big Fiction, and Courtney Thorsson’s The Sisterhood . All three are concerned with the infrastructures that produce and circulate literature: Manshel focuses on literary prizes, Sinykin on conglomeration publishing, and Thorsson on how a group of Black writers enshrined their work in the commercial and academic marketplace. Although vastly different in scale and scope, these books share an acute interest in the infrastructures that enable and disable literary production and literary critique.

Manshel, Sinykin, and Thorsson, in other words, think about literary criticism as an infrastructural method. These critics model a way of approaching critique that resembles the function of infrastructure: opening up new ways to analyze individual texts through careful close reading, while also thinking in the abstract and accumulative about how literary scholarship itself enables or disables different types of relationships to infrastructures.

Morrison and Davis: Radicalizing Autobiography

Actual infrastructures—whether those are universities or bridges—provide the material foundation to perform critique. But infrastructures are not just technical systems. They are also aesthetics and cultural ones that produce very specific articulations of modernity. Thus, Thorsson’s network of like-minded writers and Kornbluh’s call for new ways to approach aesthetic form are both infrastructural.

My argument in this article is that the work of certain authors (including Thorsson, Kornbluh, and others that I detail below) are infrastructur ing critique: building new models of critique, which foreground how infrastructure is not just an object of concern, but a methodology for contemporary scholarship. This provides a way for literary critique to intervene into our understanding of those infrastructures. As a literary method of reading, infrastructural critique becomes a practice that seeks to not just offer rejoinders of existing systems, but to actually build and sustain new ones.

This hasn’t gone unnoticed by those of us working in the humanities, especially those in my own discipline of English. 6 Since 2020 alone, there has been a dizzying proliferation of monographs, special issues, and edited collections, all dedicated to the nexus of literature and infrastructure, like some of the ones I list above.

This, to return to my earlier point, is a useful way to approach infrastructure as an object of critique. But it’s also a methodology that has limited purchase for literary studies.

As a literary method of reading, infrastructural critique becomes a practice that seeks to not just offer rejoinders of existing systems, but to actually build and sustain new ones.

My claim is that infrastructural critique in literary studies understands infrastructure not just as object that needs to be brought into the foreground, but also as method. This is a way of understanding infrastructure as an approach to critique: thinking about how the type of critical practices we undertake enable and disable new patterns of circulation.

We can trace this method of infrastructural critique through the prominence of reading across this emergent field. In a 2021 joint special issue of Resilience and American Literature on the topic, “Infrastructures of Emergency,” Reuben Martens and Pieter Vermeulen provide a useful summary of reading infrastructurally: “The critical task is then not simply to make unseen violence visible but to make it readable in relation to social and cultural frames, personal and collective memories and desires, and political and economic forces that impose their own rhythms on what can be felt, intuited, and apprehended.” 10 Their idea is that readability—as opposed to visibility—becomes a political framework: a way to not just identify, but to become actively involved in the process of changing the way we understand ourselves in relation to both one another and the systems that enmesh us.

This charge is taken up in a special issue of Social Text titled (appropriately) “Reading for Infrastructure,” 11 and in The Aesthetic Life of Infrastructure . In the latter, the editors’ introduction, “Reading Infrastructure,” provides the most explicit detailing of what this methodology looks like: “First, to read is to place an object in context, attuning oneself to its chronology and setting, to test its narrative against itself. Second, reading trains us to assess the social and political production of infrastructural space, a practice that requires imaginative investigation beyond the visible.”

Life inside the Fiction Factory: Dan Sinykin on...

What Fecu does is provide a framework for identifying, diagnosing, and (re)interpreting existing infrastructures, alongside the role that critique plays in disrupting and/or sustaining those relations. This is something that Fanon does, but also that Fecu mimics in alerting us to how acoustic infrastructures (e.g., radio) were instrumental as not just telecommunications technologies but also enabled collective practices of rebellion.

Another camp of critics approaches reading infrastructurally through form. In Lee’s The Racial Railroad , for example, she thinks through how the railroad both creates and consolidates “the stories we tell about race in the first place,” while also gesturing toward an insurgent underside where the infrastructure of race is interrogated and critiqued. The train operates as a particularly important example for its continued prominence in the American imaginary as a tool of environmental exploitation and racialization while also being a site of imagined and actual promise and potentiality.

This is true materially: the train, after all, was a place where some of the earliest class and racial struggles took place, thanks to the Pullman porters. But it is also true at a literary level. Lee looks at how Black and Asian writers turn to the train to map the entrenchment of white supremacy and how it becomes instrumental in their critiques. From Anna Julia Cooper to Colson Whitehead, writers continually use the train as a surrogate for their critiques of systemic racism (a topic that has graced the pages of Public Books previously).

This formalist approach draws from the resources and terminologies of genre critique and is equally prevalent in Hurley’s book, Infrastructures of Apocalypse . “Infrastructure is thus produced by narrative forms,” she writes, “and at the same time it also establishes—at least partially—the kinds of narratives that can play out within its space.”

In these accounts, infrastructures are simultaneously produced by and produce narrative. 13 Infrastructure is equally material and metaphorical. And it’s this movement between these two valences of infrastructure in which literary critique thrives.

Looked at in a certain light, ideas around the infrastructural humanities mirror the omnipresence of turns in critical theory (not to mention the en vogue prefixing of the humanities more generally). Whether it is the environmental, material, affective, digital, or … fill in the blank , there has been a proliferation of ostensible novel frameworks for reading in the past few years. In this sense, it’s hard to shake the feeling that literary studies of infrastructure are just another front in the so-called method wars, where competing practitioners make the case for the primacy of their approach to interpretation.

What troubles me about this emphasis on methodology is that we occasionally lose sight of what we are trying to actually do as literary critics. Matt Seybold and his guests across the best-in-class podcast series “ Criticism Ltd .” have argued that method has become a substitute for actually thinking through the politics of critique. Much of this work has confused cause and effect. In a recent survey of the method wars, Stacey Margolis drives this home: “One of the strongest critiques of the formalist turn—and, by extension, many of these new methodologies—is that it mistakenly equates passively thinking with actively performing political actions.” 14 Observation is not the same as actually acting.

Infrastructural critique in literary studies understands infrastructure not just as object that needs to be brought into the foreground, but also as method.

Let me give an example of what I mean. In Kornbluh’s most recent book (the genuine academic blockbuster) Immediacy, or the Style of Too Late Capitalism , she thinks about how to create the infrastructures to support artistic and critical production. She identifies how the contemporary is defined by its prioritization, above all else, of circulation, from binging entire TV shows to Amazon’s next-day delivery. This, of course, is an infrastructural relation, as Brian Larkin wrote back in 2013: “Infrastructures are matter that enable the movement of other matter.” 16 What this means is that the political also becomes infrastructural: the contested site between flow and blockage. Infrastructure, in this iteration, is the metaphor and method for her own critical thinking.

Kornbluh wants to create new infrastructures for producing theory. Sure, an extemporaneous X-thread can come up with an interesting syllabus almost immediately (a genre Kornbluh practically invented ), but it doesn’t allow for the structural conditions necessary to perform sustained and ongoing criticism. She argues for the importance to theory of “distance, abstraction, movement away ” as opposed to the primacy of immediacy’s “intimacy, immersion, the negation of intercession.” If we are invested in the act of trying to create these metaphorical structures of literary criticism, why wouldn’t we want to figure out how to start building new structures?

Kornbluh concludes by reading Caroline Levine, Sianne Ngai, and Fredric Jameson, describing their collective critical practices as “[committed] to categorical thought, the composition of categories that work for and through scale, impersonality, and hold. They offer interpretation of aesthetics to propound syntheses that can, in turn, capacitate new understandings and other kinds of critical theorizing.”

This, for my money, is an infrastructural critique. She constellates a way of thinking across scales that are named and enabled by and through infrastructure that, in turn, offer the potential space to create new patterns of possibility.

We can trace these patterns in Mark McGurl’s Everything and Less: The Novel in the Age of Amazon . McGurl takes on the complex infrastructure of Amazon and subjects it to generic critique. He explores how its infrastructural and logistical operations are conditioned through various devices of genre: the romance, the epic, and the novel.

In Defense of Imagination

McGurl’s final phrase, “to try,” feels like a particularly useful way to summarize infrastructural critique more generally. These scholars are not just thinking, but also trying: modeling new ways of reading and working with texts that might be able to generate new conditions of circulation.

Today, the infrastructure that supports our research and teaching continues to teeter as it is continuously rescripted by administrators, journalists, and popular culture into a moment of forever crisis. As such, we must continue to identify new ways to try and build something different. This reflective glance inward at infrastructure—at what is “beneath, behind, before” 17 —seems like as good a starting place as any.

• Lauren Berlant, “The Commons: Infrastructures for Troubling Times,” Environment and Planning , vol. 34, no. 3 (2016), p. 394. ↩
• Andy Hines’s equally excellent Outside Literary Studies: Black Criticism and the University (University of Chicago Press, 2022) traces a similar narrative in the preceding generation of Black radical criticism. ↩
• Anna Kornbluh, The Order of Forms: Realism, Formalism, and Social Space (University of Chicago Press, 2019). ↩
• Christopher Breu and Jeffrey R. Di Leo, “Theorizing Infrastructure: An Introduction,” symplokē vol. 31, no. 1 – 2 (2023), pp. 1 – 8. ↩
• I should be clear here that collapsing infrastructure is not new. What is new is not that infrastructure has changed, but—as anthropologists Nikhil Anand, Akhil Gupta, and Hannah Appel argue in their seminal 2018 collection The Promise of Infrastructure— rather that the crumbling monoliths of infrastructure have been made “visible in the global North in different ways.” And one of these very visible collapses of infrastructure is the university in which so much literary scholarship takes place. It’s also worth flagging that there has been a steady stream of infrastructural critique in literary criticism for nearly two decades, from Patricia Yaeger’s “Dreaming of Infrastructure” ( PMLA , vol. 122, no. 1, 2007) and Kate Marhsall’s monograph Corridor: Media Architectures in American Fiction (University of Minnesota Press, 2013), to the 2015 special issue of Modern Fiction Studies on “Infrastructuralism.” ↩
• Last year, the historian Mary Bridges provided a quantitative analysis of how the term “infrastructure” has come to dominate her discipline. “In 1970, the word ‘infrastructure’ appeared in 1.5 percent of history dissertations. By 2021, that number had increased to nearly 40 percent,” she writes. There is something similarly afoot in my own discipline of English. Mary Bridges, “The Infrastructural Turn in Historical Scholarship,” Modern American History , vol.  6, no.1 (2023), pp. 103–120. ↩
• Susan Leigh Star, “The Ethnography of Infrastructure,” American Behavioral Scientist , vol. 43, no .3 (1999), p. 377. ↩
• Kelly Rich, Nicole Rizzuto, and Susan Zieger, “Reading Infrastructure,” in The Aesthetic Life of Infrastructure: Race, Affect, and Environment (Northwestern University Press, 2023), p. 2. ↩
• Jennifer Wenzel (who pens the afterword for both the Aesthetic Life of Infrastructure and a special issue of Social Text dedicated to infrastructure), puts this punchily: “[Infrastructure] cannot be invisible to those charged with its maintenance and repair … and certainly not for marginalized communities consigned to inhabit a state of intimate disconnect—a form of life that entails living in close proximity to infrastructure while at the same time disconnected (or excluded) from its circulatory systems.” Jennifer Wenzel, “Forms of Life: Thinking Fossil Infrastructure and Its Narrative Grammar,” Social Text , vol. 40, no. 4 (2022), p. 159. ↩
• Reuben Martens and Pieter Vermeulen, “Infrastructural Prolepsis: Contemporary American Literature and the Future Anterior,” Resilience: A Journal of the Environmental Humanities , vol 8, no .1 (2021), p. 18. ↩
• Adriana Johnson and Daniel Nemser, “Reading for Infrastructure,” Social Text , vol. 40, no. 4 (2022), pp. 1–16. ↩
• Yanie Fecu, “Fine-Tuning Frantz Fanon’s Infrastructural Affects,” in The Aesthetic Life of Infrastructure , p. 82. ↩
• Using the techniques of genre study and formal analysis to approach infrastructure is a key intervention by literary scholars. It’s worth noting that this is an amplification of an undercurrent in anthropological scholarship. Star was interested in the literary forms of telecommunication systems and her theoretical progeny—from Brian Larkin to AbdouMaliq Simone—continue to think through the poetics of built physical and social systems of circulation. ↩
• Stacey Margolis, “As the World Turns; Or Against Methodology,” American Literary History , vol. 34, no. 1 (2022), p. 259. ↩
• Jessica Hurely and Jeffrey Insko, “Introduction: The Infrastructure of Emergency,” American Literature , vol. 93, no. 3 (2021), p. 351. ↩
• Brian Larkin, “The Politics and Poetics of Infrastructure,” Annual Review of Anthropology , vol. 42, no. 3 (2013), p. 329. ↩
• Jennifer Wenzel, “Forms of Life: Thinking Fossil Infrastructure and Its Narrative Grammar,” Social Text vol. 40, no. 4 (2022), p. 173. ↩

You Might Also Like

Public Picks 2023

Humans Are Nature’s Eccentrics—Laughing and Crying Show Why

Oil and Injury in Los Angeles

Fixing Nostalgia: “Star Trek” Boldly Goes to Less Utopian Futures

South Africa: Living in a Future Way Ahead of Our Time

Politics—Not Tech—Can Save Black Jobs from AI

Information

• Author Services

Initiatives

You are accessing a machine-readable page. In order to be human-readable, please install an RSS reader.

All articles published by MDPI are made immediately available worldwide under an open access license. No special permission is required to reuse all or part of the article published by MDPI, including figures and tables. For articles published under an open access Creative Common CC BY license, any part of the article may be reused without permission provided that the original article is clearly cited. For more information, please refer to https://www.mdpi.com/openaccess .

Feature papers represent the most advanced research with significant potential for high impact in the field. A Feature Paper should be a substantial original Article that involves several techniques or approaches, provides an outlook for future research directions and describes possible research applications.

Feature papers are submitted upon individual invitation or recommendation by the scientific editors and must receive positive feedback from the reviewers.

Editor’s Choice articles are based on recommendations by the scientific editors of MDPI journals from around the world. Editors select a small number of articles recently published in the journal that they believe will be particularly interesting to readers, or important in the respective research area. The aim is to provide a snapshot of some of the most exciting work published in the various research areas of the journal.

Original Submission Date Received: .

• Active Journals
• Find a Journal
• Proceedings Series
• For Authors
• For Reviewers
• For Editors
• For Librarians
• For Publishers
• For Societies
• For Conference Organizers
• Open Access Policy
• Institutional Open Access Program
• Special Issues Guidelines
• Editorial Process
• Research and Publication Ethics
• Article Processing Charges
• Testimonials
• Preprints.org
• SciProfiles
• Encyclopedia

Article Menu

• Subscribe SciFeed
• Recommended Articles
• Author Biographies
• Google Scholar
• on Google Scholar
• Table of Contents

Find support for a specific problem in the support section of our website.

Please let us know what you think of our products and services.

Visit our dedicated information section to learn more about MDPI.

JSmol Viewer

Water poverty index over the past two decades: a comprehensive review and future prospects—the middle east as a case study.

1. Introduction

2. materials and methods.

• Shortlisting of literature included in this review covering the WPI and the case study
• The articles reviewed are in English, the most frequent language.
• The articles reviewed intentionally included (a) articles covering theoretical foundations of the WPI; and/or (b) practical studies at global, regional, national, basin and local levels. This was done intentionally to cover the various scales on which the WPI was assessed and/or (c) cover the different WPI versions during this period.
• Articles that cover water scarcity in the Middle East
• The years included were from 2001 to 2023.
• SDGs and their relation to the WPI
• Human development and the relation to the WPI
• Fragile contexts and recommended tools to measure state fragility.
• General literature available focusing on
• The shortlisted articles were reviewed chronologically, from the oldest to the newest. The literature findings were categorised according to the topic and focus. A comparison between different studies was made, and the literature review was included. At this stage, alignments and contradictions in the literature were captured and reported. The highlights of each stage of the WPI development journey were captured and reported.
• MS Office software 2016 package was used to document the main findings of the reviewed literature, as well as the alignment, inconsistencies, and contradictions between various studies.
• The authors used the above analysis to identify knowledge gaps and future trends, as well as recommendation for further research.

3. Water Challenges Globally and in the Middle East at a Glance

4. historical perspectives and theoretical foundations, 4.1. evolution of water scarcity indices and empirical examples from the middle east, 4.2. key theoretical frameworks influencing wpi development.

• Capability to stay alive/enjoy a prolonged life
• Capability to ensure biological reproduction
• Capability for healthy living
• Capability for social interaction
• Capability to have knowledge and freedom of expression and thought.

4.3. Emergence of the Multidimensional Approach to Water Poverty

4.4. the development of wpi, 4.4.1. conventional wpi, 4.4.2. the simple time analysis approach, 4.4.3. holistic wpi, 4.4.4. improved wpi methods, 4.5. versions of the wpi emerged, 4.5.1. water wealth index, 4.5.2. agricultural wpi, 4.5.3. inclusive wpi, 4.5.4. household water security index, 4.5.5. domestic water poverty index, 5. global applications, regional perspectives, and case studies, 6. water poverty index measurement in fragile middle eastern countries, 6.1. water-based-fragility in the middle east, 6.2. wpi in the middle east, 7. critique, emerging trends, and bridging theory to practice, 7.1. critical analysis of wpi weaknesses, limitations, and potential biases, 7.2. emerging trends and lessons learned from real-world implementations, 7.3. challenges in transitioning from theory to practice and strategies employed.

• Despite the apparent global increase in water scarcity, ref. [ 35 ] argued that the water-scarcity issue can be solved if the water cost is increased. They emphasised that the paramount water policy concern in this context revolves around formulating a suitable pricing mechanism for water or creating a water market where prices are determined. As water prices experience an upward trajectory, there is a consequential exploration of new, albeit more expensive, water sources. This exploration increases supply volumes. Consequently, both marginal and average costs associated with the water supply are elevated. The newly tapped water sources may include deeper aquifers, surface water located at greater distances, reclaimed wastewater, brackish water subjected to desalination, and, at the furthest extreme, desalinated seawater. This could be true, but it is far from practical and inclusive to people experiencing poverty [ 35 , 57 ].
• Refs. [ 57 , 58 ] highlighted the necessity of considering a participatory approach in water resources management for effective and durable solutions. They emphasised that excluding communities from participating in their development affects the level of effectiveness of the water regulations, the level of communities’ ownership of these regulations and the increased level of sustainability. However, the inclusive and participatory approach requires certain governmental capacities and regulations to enforce this approach. Yet, such an enabling environment could be missing, especially in developing / fragile contexts.

8. Integration with Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

8.1. alignment between the wpi and relevant sdgs, 8.2. contribution to sustainable water management and development, 9. conclusions.

• The smaller geographical area was masked by the larger one (e.g., local scale by national scale), knowing that they were used to assess the water situation at global and national levels.
• Water resources were the sole criterion for assessing water problems. Therefore, other factors, like access, types of usage and environmental needs, that affect access to water were not considered.
• These indicators also did not consider the adaptive capacity of a country.

Author Contributions

Data availability statement, conflicts of interest.

• Garriga, R.; Foguet, A. Improved method to calculate Water Poverty Index at local scale. J. Environ. Eng. 2010 , 136 , 1287–1298. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sullivan, C. Calculating a water poverty index. World Dev. 2002 , 30 , 1195–1210. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Prince, B.; Juran, L.; Sridhar, V.; Bukvic, A.; MacDonald, M. A statistical and spatial analysis of water poverty using a modified Water Poverty Index. Int. J. Water Resour. Dev. 2020 , 37 , 339–356. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Juran, L.; MacDonald, M.C.; Basu, N.B.; Hubbard, S.; Rajagopal, R.; Rajagopalan, P.; Philip, L. Development and application of a multi-scalar, participant-driven water poverty index in post-tsunami India. Int. J. Water Resour. Dev. 2016 , 33 , 955–975. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Chenoweth, J. A re-assessment of indicators of national water scarcity. Water Int. 2008 , 33 , 5–18. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Jemmali, H.; Sullivan, C. Multidimensional Analysis of Water Poverty in MENA Region: An Empirical Comparison with Physical Indicators. Soc. Indic. Res. 2014 , 115 , 253–277. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Chenoweth, J.; Hadjinicolaou, P.; Bruggeman, A.; Lelieveld, J.; Levin, Z.; Lange, M.A.; Xoplaki, E.; Hadjikakou, M. Impact of climate change on the water resources of the eastern Mediterranean and Middle East region: Modeled 21st century changes and implications. Water Resour. Res. 2011 , 47 , W06506. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Desai, H. States of fragility and official development assistance. In OECD Development Co-Operation Working Papers ; No. 76; OECD Publishing: Paris, France, 2020. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sullivan, C.; Meigh, J.; Giacomello, A.; Fediw, T.; Lawrence, P.; Samad, M.; Mlote, S.; Hutton, C.; Allan, J.; Schulze, R.; et al. The Water Poverty Index: Development and application at the community scale. Nat. Resour. Forum. 2003 , 27 , 189–199. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lawrence, P.; Meig, J.; Sullivan, C. The water poverty index: An international comparison. In Keele Economic Research Papers ; Keele University, Department of Economics: Keele, UK, 2002; ISSN 1352-8955. [ Google Scholar ]
• Alqatarneh, G.; Al-Zboon, K. Water Poverty Index: A Tool for Water Resources Management in Jordan. Water Air Soil Pollut. 2022 , 233 , 461. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ladi, T.; Mahmoudpour, A.; Sharif, A. Assessing impacts of the water poverty index components on the human development index in Iran. Habitat Int. 2021 , 113 , 102375. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Alamarah-Tamimi, A.R.; Isayed, A.A.; Mughli, M.A. Using Socio-economic indicators for integrated water resources management: Case study of Palestine. In Water Resources in the Middle East ; Shuval, H., Dweik, H., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2007; Volume 2. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• De Senna, L.; Maia, A.; De Medeiros, J. The use of principal component analysis for the construction of the Water Poverty Index. RBRH (Online) 2019 , 24 , e19. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Fenwick, C. Identifying the Water Poor: An Indicator Approach to Assessing Water Poverty in Rural Mexico. Ph.D. Thesis, The Department of Civil, Environmental and Geomatic Engineering, University College London, London, UK, 2010. [ Google Scholar ]
• Komnenic, V.; Ahlers, R.; Zaag, P. Assessing the usefulness of the water poverty index by applying it to a special case: Can one be water poor with high levels of access? Phys. Chem. Earth. 2009 , 34 , 219–224. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Nadeem, A.; Cheo, R.; Shaoan, H. Multidimensional Analysis of Water Poverty and Subjective Well-being: A Case Study on Local Household Variation in Faisalabad, Pakistan. Soc. Indic. Res. 2017 , 138 , 207–224. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sullivan, C.A.; Vörösmarty, C.J.; Craswell, E.; Bunn, S.; Cline, S.; Heidecke, C.; Storeygard, A.; Proussevitch, A.; Douglas, E.; Bossio, D.; et al. Mapping the Links between Water, Poverty and Food Security ; GWSP Issues in GWS Research, No.1; GWSP IPO: Wallingford, UK, 2006. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sayyar, L.Z.; Mahdei, K.N.; Fami, H.S.; Motaghed, M. Developing and Analysing the Agricultural Water Poverty Index in West Iran. Sustainability 2022 , 14 , 1410. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• El-Gafy, I. The water poverty index as an assistant tool for drawing strategies of the Egyptian water sector. Ain Shams Eng. J. 2018 , 9 , 173–186. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Jemmali, H.; Matoussi, M. A multidimensional analysis of water poverty at local scale: Application of improved water poverty index for Tunisia. Water Policy 2013 , 15 , 98–115. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bushnaq, R.B. Implications of Water Management Policies on Water Poverty in Palestine. Master’s Thesis, Faculty of Graduate Studies An-Najah National University, Nablus, Palestine, 2004. [ Google Scholar ]
• Jemmali, H. Water Poverty in Africa: A Review and Synthesis of Issues, Potentials, and Policy Implications. Soc. Indic. Res. 2016 , 136 , 335–358. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Chen, T.; Hsu, W.; Chen, W. An Assessment of Water Resources in the Taiwan Strait Island Using the Water Poverty Index. Sustainability 2020 , 12 , 2351. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Manandhar, S.; Pandey, V.P.; Kazama, F. Application of the water poverty index (WPI) in the Nepalese context: A case study of Kali Gandaki river basin (KGRB). Water Resour. Manag. 2012 , 26 , 89–107. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lopez-Alvarez, B.; Urbano-Peña MD, L.A.; Moran-Ramírez, J.; Ramos-Leal, J.A.; Tuxpan-Vargas, J. Environment component estimation via remote sensing in the water poverty index in semi-arid zones. Hydrol. Sci. J. 2020 , 65 , 2647–2657. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Jemmali, H.; Abu-Ghunmi, L. Multidimensional analysis of the water-poverty nexus using a modified Water Poverty Index: A case study from Jordan. Water Policy 2016 , 18 , 826–843. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Koirala, S.; Fang, Y.; Dahal, M.; Zhang, C.; Pandey, B.; Shrestha, S. Application of Water Poverty Index (WPI) in Spatial Analysis of Water Stress in Koshi River Basin, Nepal. Sustainability 2020 , 12 , 727. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zare-Bidaki, R.; Pouyandeh, M.; Zamani-Ahmadmahmoodi, R. Applying the enhanced Water Poverty Index (eWPI) to analyze water scarcity and income poverty relation in Beheshtabad Basin, Iran. Appl. Water Sci. 2022 , 13 , 53. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sullivan, C.; Meigh, J. Considering the Water Poverty Index in the context of poverty alleviation. Water Policy 2003 , 5 , 513–528. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Jaren, L.S.; Mondal, M.S. Assessing Water Poverty of Livelihood Groups in Peri-Urban Areas around Dhaka under a Changing Environment. Water. 2021 , 13 , 2674. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Connected-Papers. Available online: https://www.connectedpapers.com/ (accessed on 1 June 2024).
• Research Rabbit. Available online: https://researchrabbitapp.com/ (accessed on 1 June 2024).
• Morante-Carballo, F.; Montalván-Burbano, N.; Quiñonez-Barzola, X.; Jaya-Montalvo, M.; Carrión-Mero, P. What Do We Know about Water Scarcity in Semi-Arid Zones? A Global Analysis and Research Trends. Water 2022 , 14 , 2685. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Feitelson, E.; Chenoweth, J. Water poverty: Towards a meaningful indicator. Water Policy 2002 , 4 , 263–281. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sullivan, C. The Potential for Calculating a Meaningful Water Poverty Index. Water Int. 2001 , 26 , 471–480. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sullivan, C.A.; Meigh, J.R.; Fediw, T.S. Derivation and Testing of the Water Poverty Index Phase 1-Final Report ; Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, Natural Environmental Research Council: Wallingford, UK, 2002. [ Google Scholar ]
• Jemmali, H. Analyse Multidimensionnelle de la Pauvreté en Eau: Cadre Théorique et Applications. Ph.D. Thesis, Université de Tunis El Manar, Faculté des Sciences Économiques et de Gestion de Tunis, Tunis, Tunisia, 2012. [ Google Scholar ]
• United Nations—Food and Agriculture Organization. AQUASTAT Dissemination System-Online Database. 2021. Available online: https://data.apps.fao.org/aquastat/?lang=en (accessed on 30 July 2024).
• Palestinian Water Authority. Current Status Report for Water Resources for the Years 2020–2021. Ramallah, Palestine, 2022; pp. 59–61. Available online: https://wmo.int/publication-series/state-of-global-water-resources-2022 (accessed on 20 July 2024).
• Gleik, P.H. Basic Water Requirements for Human Activities: Meeting Basic Needs. Water Int. 1996 , 21 , 83–92. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Rijsberman, F.R. Water scarcity: Fact or fiction? Agric. Water Manag. 2006 , 80 , 5–22. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Falkenmark, M.; Lundqvist, J.; Widstrand, C. Macro-scale water scarcity requires micro-scale approaches. Nat. Resour. Forum 1989 , 13 , 258–267. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Seckler, D.; Amarasinghe, U.; Molden, D.; de Silva, R.; Barker, R. World Water Demand and Supply, 1990 to 2025: Scenarios and Issues ; IWMI Research Report 19; International Water Management Institute (IWMI): Colombo, Sri Lanka, 1998. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ohlsson, L. Water Conflicts and Social Resource Scarcity. Phys. Chem. Earth Part B Hydrol. Ocean. Atmos. 2000 , 25 , 213–220. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Smakhtin, V.; Revenja, C.; Doll, P. Taking into Account Environmental Water Requirements in Global-Scale Water Resources Assessments. Comprehensive Assessment of Water Management in Agriculture ; International Water Management Institute (IWMI), 2004; ISBN 9290905425. Available online: http://infoandina.org/infoandina/sites/default/files/publication/files/2004_Report_2.pdf (accessed on 20 July 2024).
• Forouzani, M.; Karami, E. Agricultural water poverty index and sustainability. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2011 , 31 , 415–431. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Molle, F.; Mollinga, P. Water poverty indicators: Conceptual problems and policy issues. Water 2003 , 5 , 529–544. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Forouzani, M.; Karami, E.; Zamani, G.H.; Moghaddam, K.R. Agricultural water poverty: Using q-methodology to understand stakeholders’ perceptions. J. Arid. Environ. 2013 , 97 , 190–204. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Arnell, N.W. Climate change and global water resources: SRES emissions and socio-economic scenarios. Glob. Environ. Change. 2004 , 14 , 31–52. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Morin, A. The Canadian Water Sustainability Index (CWSI) Case Study Report ; Aboriginal Policy Research Consortium International (APRCi): Winnipeg, MB, Canada, 2006; p. 215. Available online: https://ir.lib.uwo.ca/aprci/215 (accessed on 20 June 2024).
• Chavez, H.M.L.; Alipaz, S. An Integrated Indicator Based on Basin Hydrology, Environment, Life, and Policy: The Watershed Sustainability Index. Water Resour. Manag. 2007 , 21 , 883–895. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Juwanaa, I.; Muttil, N.; Perera, B. Application of west java water sustainability index to three water catchments in west java, Indonesia. Ecol. Indic. 2016 , 70 , 401–408. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Heidecke, C. Development and Evaluation of a Regional Water Poverty Index for Benin ; International Food Policy Research Institute, Environment and Production Division: Washington, DC, USA, 2006. [ Google Scholar ]
• Salameh, E. Redefining the Water Poverty Index. Water Int. 2000 , 25 , 469–473. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hemmati, B.; Forouzani, M.; Yazdanpanah, M.; Khosravipour, B. Comparison application of the analytic network process (ANP) and analytic hierarchy process (AHP) in analysis of the agricultural water poverty index: The case of dezful county. Iran. Agric. Ext. Educ. J. 2016 , 11 , Pe203–Pe220. Available online: https://www.iaeej.ir/?_action=article&kw=20523&_kw=Analytic+Network+Process+%28ANP%29&lang=en (accessed on 20 July 2024).
• Kini, J. Inclusive water poverty index: A holistic approach for helping local water and sanitation services planning. Water Policy 2017 , 19 , 758–772. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ramirez, R.; Sanudo-Fontaneda, L.; McCallum, S. Human dignity as a mediator effect for the rights and duties of accessing water and sanitation. Trans. R. Soc. S. Afr. 2020 , 75 , 203–212. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hailu, R.; Tolossa, D.; Alemu, G. Household Water Security Index: Development and Application in the Awash Basin of Ethiopia. Int. J. River Basin Manag. 2020 , 20 , 185–201. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Gaswami, T.; Ghosal, S. Domestic water poverty in a semi-arid district of eastern India: Multiple dimensions, regional pattern, and association with human development. Environ. Dev. 2022 , 44 , 100742. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Giné Garriga, R.; Pérez-Foguet, A. Enhancing the water poverty index: Towards a meaningful indicator. In IV Congrés Universitat I Cooperació al Desenvolupament ; Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona: Bellaterra, Spain, 2008. [ Google Scholar ]
• Giné Garriga, R.; Pérez-Foguet, A. The water poverty index: Assessing water scarcity at different scales. In Proceedings of the II Congrés UPC Sostenible 2015, Barcelona, Spain, 2009; Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228621973_The_Water_Poverty_Index_Assessing_water_scarcity_at_different_scales (accessed on 20 June 2024).
• Jemmali, H.; Sullivan, C. Understanding water conflicts in the MENA region: A comparative analysis using a restructured Water Poverty Index. In The Routledge Handbook on the Middle East Economy ; Taylor & Francis Group: Abingdon, UK, 2021. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ahmed, M.; Hamed, R. Improved Multidimensional Method for Management Water Scarcity Using Water Poverty Index at Different Scales. Eng. Res. J. 2022 , 45 , 193–197. [ Google Scholar ]
• Foguet, A.P.; Garriga, R.G. Analysing water poverty in basins. Water Resour. Manag. 2011 , 25 , 3595–3612. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• United Nations–Water. Summary Progress Update 2021: SDG 6—Water and Sanitation for All ; UN-Water: Geneva, Switzerland, 2021. [ Google Scholar ]

Click here to enlarge figure

Share and Cite

Isayed, A.; Menendez-Aguado, J.M.; Jemmali, H.; Mahmoud, N. Water Poverty Index over the Past Two Decades: A Comprehensive Review and Future Prospects—The Middle East as a Case Study. Water 2024 , 16 , 2250. https://doi.org/10.3390/w16162250

Isayed A, Menendez-Aguado JM, Jemmali H, Mahmoud N. Water Poverty Index over the Past Two Decades: A Comprehensive Review and Future Prospects—The Middle East as a Case Study. Water . 2024; 16(16):2250. https://doi.org/10.3390/w16162250

Isayed, Ashraf, Juan M. Menendez-Aguado, Hatem Jemmali, and Nidal Mahmoud. 2024. "Water Poverty Index over the Past Two Decades: A Comprehensive Review and Future Prospects—The Middle East as a Case Study" Water 16, no. 16: 2250. https://doi.org/10.3390/w16162250

Article Metrics

Article access statistics, further information, mdpi initiatives, follow mdpi.

Subscribe to receive issue release notifications and newsletters from MDPI journals