difference between background and literature review in research

Educational resources and simple solutions for your research journey

Key Differences Between the Background of a Study and Literature Review

Don’t be too hard on yourself if you didn’t realize the study background and literature review were two distinct entities. The study background and literature review are both important parts of the research paper; however, due to their striking similarities, they are frequently confused with one another 1 . In this article, we will look at the key differences between the background of a study and literature review and how to write each section effectively.  

When it comes to similarities between the study background and the literature review, both provide information about existing knowledge in a specific field by discussing various studies and developments. They almost always address gaps in the literature to contextualize the study at hand. So, how do they differ from one another? Simple answer: A literature review is an expanded version of the study background, or a study background is a condensed version of a literature review. To put it another way, “a study background is to a literature review what an abstract is to a paper.”  

Differences between the background of the study and a literature review  

Though the distinctions are subtle, understanding them is critical to avoiding confusion between these two elements. The following are the differences between the background of the study and a literature review:  

• The background of a study is discussed at the beginning of the introduction while the literature review begins once the background of a study is completed (in the introduction section).  
• The study background sets the stage for the study; the main goal of the study background is to effectively communicate the need for the study by highlighting the gaps in answering the open-ended questions. In contrast, a literature review is an in-depth examination of the relevant literature in that field in order to prepare readers for the study at hand . Furthermore, the literature review provides a broad overview of the topic to support the case for identifying gaps.  
• The study background and literature review serve slightly different purposes; the study background emphasizes the significance of THE study, whereas the review of literature emphasizes advancement in the field by conducting a critical analysis of existing literature. It should be noted that a literature review also identifies gaps in the literature by comparing and analyzing various studies, but it is the study background that summarizes the critical findings that justifies the need for the research at hand.  
• Another interesting difference is how they are structured; the study background structure follows a top-down approach, beginning with a discussion of a broader area and eventually narrowing down to a specific question—study problem—addressed in the study.   
• The length of the background of the study and the literature review also differ, with the former being more concise and crisp and the latter being more detailed and elaborate.  

Tips to effectively write the background of the study  

Writing the background of the study is sometimes a difficult undertaking for early career researchers; however, because this is an important component of the paper, it is critical that once write it clearly and accurately. The background must convey the context of the study, defining the need to conduct the current study 2 . The study background should be organized in such a way that it provides a historical perspective on the topic, while identifying the gaps that the current study aims to fill. If the topic is multidisciplinary, it should concisely address the relevant studies, laying the groundwork for the research question at hand. To put it simply, the researchers can follow the structure below:  

• What is the state of the literature on the subject?  
• Where are the gaps in the field?  
• What is the importance of filling these gaps?  
• What are the premises of your research?  

The idea is to present the relevant studies to build the context without going into detail about each one; remember to keep it concise and direct. It is recommended that the findings be organized chronologically in order to trace the developments in the field and provide a snapshot of research advancements. The best way is to create an engaging story to pique readers’ interest in the topic by presenting sequential findings that led to YOUR research question. The flow should be such that each study prepares for the next while remaining in accordance with the central theme. However, the author should avoid common blunders such as inappropriate length (too long or too short), ambiguity, an unfocused theme, and disorganization.  

Tips to write the literature review without mixing it up with the background of the study  

As previously discussed in this article, the literature review is an extended version of the background of the study. It follows the background of the study and presents a detailed analysis of existing literature to support the background.   

Authors must conduct a thorough research survey that includes various studies related to the broad topics of their research. Following an introduction to a broader topic, the literature review directs readers to relevant studies that are significant for the objectives of the present study.   

The authors are advised to present the information thematically, preferably chronologically, for a better understanding of the readers from a wide range of disciplines. This arrangement provides a more complete picture of previous research, current focus, and future directions. Finally, there are two types of literature reviews that serve different purposes in papers; they are broadly classified as experimental and theoretical literature reviews. This, however, is a topic for another article.  

We believe you can now easily distinguish between the study background and the literature review and understand how you can write them most effectively for your next study. Have fun writing!  

  References  

• Qureshi, F. 6 Differences between Study Background and Literature Review. Editage Insights, May 3, 2019. https://www.editage.com/insights/6-differences-between-a-study-background-and-a-literature-review .  
• Sachdev, R. How to Write the Background of Your Study. Editage Insights, November 27, 2018. https://www.editage.com/insights/how-to-write-the-background-of-your-study .  

R Discovery is a literature search and research reading platform that accelerates your research discovery journey by keeping you updated on the latest, most relevant scholarly content. With 250M+ research articles sourced from trusted aggregators like CrossRef, Unpaywall, PubMed, PubMed Central, Open Alex and top publishing houses like Springer Nature, JAMA, IOP, Taylor & Francis, NEJM, BMJ, Karger, SAGE, Emerald Publishing and more, R Discovery puts a world of research at your fingertips.  

Try R Discovery Prime FREE for 1 week or upgrade at just US$72 a year to access premium features that let you listen to research on the go, read in your language, collaborate with peers, auto sync with reference managers, and much more. Choose a simpler, smarter way to find and read research – Download the app and start your free 7-day trial today !  

Related Posts

What is Research Impact: Types and Tips for Academics

Research in Shorts: R Discovery’s New Feature Helps Academics Assess Relevant Papers in 2mins 

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

Types of Literature Review — A Guide for Researchers

Table of Contents

Researchers often face challenges when choosing the appropriate type of literature review for their study. Regardless of the type of research design and the topic of a research problem , they encounter numerous queries, including:

What is the right type of literature review my study demands?

• How do we gather the data?
• How to conduct one?
• How reliable are the review findings?
• How do we employ them in our research? And the list goes on.

If you’re also dealing with such a hefty questionnaire, this article is of help. Read through this piece of guide to get an exhaustive understanding of the different types of literature reviews and their step-by-step methodologies along with a dash of pros and cons discussed.

Heading from scratch!

What is a Literature Review?

A literature review provides a comprehensive overview of existing knowledge on a particular topic, which is quintessential to any research project. Researchers employ various literature reviews based on their research goals and methodologies. The review process involves assembling, critically evaluating, and synthesizing existing scientific publications relevant to the research question at hand. It serves multiple purposes, including identifying gaps in existing literature, providing theoretical background, and supporting the rationale for a research study.

What is the importance of a Literature review in research?

Literature review in research serves several key purposes, including:

• Background of the study: Provides proper context for the research. It helps researchers understand the historical development, theoretical perspectives, and key debates related to their research topic.
• Identification of research gaps: By reviewing existing literature, researchers can identify gaps or inconsistencies in knowledge, paving the way for new research questions and hypotheses relevant to their study.
• Theoretical framework development: Facilitates the development of theoretical frameworks by cultivating diverse perspectives and empirical findings. It helps researchers refine their conceptualizations and theoretical models.
• Methodological guidance: Offers methodological guidance by highlighting the documented research methods and techniques used in previous studies. It assists researchers in selecting appropriate research designs, data collection methods, and analytical tools.
• Quality assurance and upholding academic integrity: Conducting a thorough literature review demonstrates the rigor and scholarly integrity of the research. It ensures that researchers are aware of relevant studies and can accurately attribute ideas and findings to their original sources.

Types of Literature Review

Literature review plays a crucial role in guiding the research process , from providing the background of the study to research dissemination and contributing to the synthesis of the latest theoretical literature review findings in academia.

However, not all types of literature reviews are the same; they vary in terms of methodology, approach, and purpose. Let's have a look at the various types of literature reviews to gain a deeper understanding of their applications.

1. Narrative Literature Review

A narrative literature review, also known as a traditional literature review, involves analyzing and summarizing existing literature without adhering to a structured methodology. It typically provides a descriptive overview of key concepts, theories, and relevant findings of the research topic.

Unlike other types of literature reviews, narrative reviews reinforce a more traditional approach, emphasizing the interpretation and discussion of the research findings rather than strict adherence to methodological review criteria. It helps researchers explore diverse perspectives and insights based on the research topic and acts as preliminary work for further investigation.

Steps to Conduct a Narrative Literature Review

Source:- https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Steps-of-writing-a-narrative-review_fig1_354466408

Define the research question or topic:

The first step in conducting a narrative literature review is to clearly define the research question or topic of interest. Defining the scope and purpose of the review includes — What specific aspect of the topic do you want to explore? What are the main objectives of the research? Refine your research question based on the specific area you want to explore.

Conduct a thorough literature search

Once the research question is defined, you can conduct a comprehensive literature search. Explore and use relevant databases and search engines like SciSpace Discover to identify credible and pertinent, scholarly articles and publications.

Select relevant studies

Before choosing the right set of studies, it’s vital to determine inclusion (studies that should possess the required factors) and exclusion criteria for the literature and then carefully select papers. For example — Which studies or sources will be included based on relevance, quality, and publication date?

*Important (applies to all the reviews): Inclusion criteria are the factors a study must include (For example: Include only peer-reviewed articles published between 2022-2023, etc.). Exclusion criteria are the factors that wouldn’t be required for your search strategy (Example: exclude irrelevant papers, preprints, written in non-English, etc.)

Critically analyze the literature

Once the relevant studies are shortlisted, evaluate the methodology, findings, and limitations of each source and jot down key themes, patterns, and contradictions. You can use efficient AI tools to conduct a thorough literature review and analyze all the required information.

Synthesize and integrate the findings

Now, you can weave together the reviewed studies, underscoring significant findings such that new frameworks, contrasting viewpoints, and identifying knowledge gaps.

Discussion and conclusion

This is an important step before crafting a narrative review — summarize the main findings of the review and discuss their implications in the relevant field. For example — What are the practical implications for practitioners? What are the directions for future research for them?

Write a cohesive narrative review

Organize the review into coherent sections and structure your review logically, guiding the reader through the research landscape and offering valuable insights. Use clear and concise language to convey key points effectively.

Structure of Narrative Literature Review

A well-structured, narrative analysis or literature review typically includes the following components:

• Introduction: Provides an overview of the topic, objectives of the study, and rationale for the review.
• Background: Highlights relevant background information and establish the context for the review.
• Main Body: Indexes the literature into thematic sections or categories, discussing key findings, methodologies, and theoretical frameworks.
• Discussion: Analyze and synthesize the findings of the reviewed studies, stressing similarities, differences, and any gaps in the literature.
• Conclusion: Summarizes the main findings of the review, identifies implications for future research, and offers concluding remarks.

Pros and Cons of Narrative Literature Review

• Flexibility in methodology and doesn’t necessarily rely on structured methodologies
• Follows traditional approach and provides valuable and contextualized insights
• Suitable for exploring complex or interdisciplinary topics. For example — Climate change and human health, Cybersecurity and privacy in the digital age, and more
• Subjectivity in data selection and interpretation
• Potential for bias in the review process
• Lack of rigor compared to systematic reviews

Example of Well-Executed Narrative Literature Reviews

Paper title:  Examining Moral Injury in Clinical Practice: A Narrative Literature Review

Source: SciSpace

You can also chat with the papers using SciSpace ChatPDF to get a thorough understanding of the research papers.

While narrative reviews offer flexibility, academic integrity remains paramount. So, ensure proper citation of all sources and maintain a transparent and factual approach throughout your critical narrative review, itself.

2. Systematic Review

A systematic literature review is one of the comprehensive types of literature review that follows a structured approach to assembling, analyzing, and synthesizing existing research relevant to a particular topic or question. It involves clearly defined criteria for exploring and choosing studies, as well as rigorous methods for evaluating the quality of relevant studies.

It plays a prominent role in evidence-based practice and decision-making across various domains, including healthcare, social sciences, education, health sciences, and more. By systematically investigating available literature, researchers can identify gaps in knowledge, evaluate the strength of evidence, and report future research directions.

Steps to Conduct Systematic Reviews

Source:- https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Steps-of-Systematic-Literature-Review_fig1_321422320

Here are the key steps involved in conducting a systematic literature review

Formulate a clear and focused research question

Clearly define the research question or objective of the review. It helps to centralize the literature search strategy and determine inclusion criteria for relevant studies.

Develop a thorough literature search strategy

Design a comprehensive search strategy to identify relevant studies. It involves scrutinizing scientific databases and all relevant articles in journals. Plus, seek suggestions from domain experts and review reference lists of relevant review articles.

Screening and selecting studies

Employ predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria to systematically screen the identified studies. This screening process also typically involves multiple reviewers independently assessing the eligibility of each study.

Data extraction

Extract key information from selected studies using standardized forms or protocols. It includes study characteristics, methods, results, and conclusions.

Critical appraisal

Evaluate the methodological quality and potential biases of included studies. Various tools (BMC medical research methodology) and criteria can be implemented for critical evaluation depending on the study design and research quetions .

Data synthesis

Analyze and synthesize review findings from individual studies to draw encompassing conclusions or identify overarching patterns and explore heterogeneity among studies.

Interpretation and conclusion

Interpret the findings about the research question, considering the strengths and limitations of the research evidence. Draw conclusions and implications for further research.

The final step — Report writing

Craft a detailed report of the systematic literature review adhering to the established guidelines of PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses). This ensures transparency and reproducibility of the review process.

By following these steps, a systematic literature review aims to provide a comprehensive and unbiased summary of existing evidence, help make informed decisions, and advance knowledge in the respective domain or field.

Structure of a systematic literature review

A well-structured systematic literature review typically consists of the following sections:

• Introduction: Provides background information on the research topic, outlines the review objectives, and enunciates the scope of the study.
• Methodology: Describes the literature search strategy, selection criteria, data extraction process, and other methods used for data synthesis, extraction, or other data analysis..
• Results: Presents the review findings, including a summary of the incorporated studies and their key findings.
• Discussion: Interprets the findings in light of the review objectives, discusses their implications, and identifies limitations or promising areas for future research.
• Conclusion: Summarizes the main review findings and provides suggestions based on the evidence presented in depth meta analysis.

*Important (applies to all the reviews): Remember, the specific structure of your literature review may vary depending on your topic, research question, and intended audience. However, adhering to a clear and logical hierarchy ensures your review effectively analyses and synthesizes knowledge and contributes valuable insights for readers.

Pros and Cons of Systematic Literature Review

• Adopts rigorous and transparent methodology
• Minimizes bias and enhances the reliability of the study
• Provides evidence-based insights
• Time and resource-intensive
• High dependency on the quality of available literature (literature research strategy should be accurate)
• Potential for publication bias

Example of Well-Executed Systematic Literature Review

Paper title: Systematic Reviews: Understanding the Best Evidence For Clinical Decision-making in Health Care: Pros and Cons.

Read this detailed article on how to use AI tools to conduct a systematic review for your research!

3. Scoping Literature Review

A scoping literature review is a methodological review type of literature review that adopts an iterative approach to systematically map the existing literature on a particular topic or research area. It involves identifying, selecting, and synthesizing relevant papers to provide an overview of the size and scope of available evidence. Scoping reviews are broader in scope and include a diverse range of study designs and methodologies especially focused on health services research.

The main purpose of a scoping literature review is to examine the extent, range, and nature of existing studies on a topic, thereby identifying gaps in research, inconsistencies, and areas for further investigation. Additionally, scoping reviews can help researchers identify suitable methodologies and formulate clinical recommendations. They also act as the frameworks for future systematic reviews or primary research studies.

Scoping reviews are primarily focused on —

• Emerging or evolving topics — where the research landscape is still growing or budding. Example — Whole Systems Approaches to Diet and Healthy Weight: A Scoping Review of Reviews .
• Broad and complex topics : With a vast amount of existing literature.
• Scenarios where a systematic review is not feasible: Due to limited resources or time constraints.

Steps to Conduct a Scoping Literature Review

While Scoping reviews are not as rigorous as systematic reviews, however, they still follow a structured approach. Here are the steps:

Identify the research question: Define the broad topic you want to explore.

Identify Relevant Studies: Conduct a comprehensive search of relevant literature using appropriate databases, keywords, and search strategies.

Select studies to be included in the review: Based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria, determine the appropriate studies to be included in the review.

Data extraction and charting : Extract relevant information from selected studies, such as year, author, main results, study characteristics, key findings, and methodological approaches.  However, it varies depending on the research question.

Collate, summarize, and report the results: Analyze and summarize the extracted data to identify key themes and trends. Then, present the findings of the scoping review in a clear and structured manner, following established guidelines and frameworks .

Structure of a Scoping Literature Review

A scoping literature review typically follows a structured format similar to a systematic review. It includes the following sections:

• Introduction: Introduce the research topic and objectives of the review, providing the historical context, and rationale for the study.
• Methods : Describe the methods used to conduct the review, including search strategies, study selection criteria, and data extraction procedures.
• Results: Present the findings of the review, including key themes, concepts, and patterns identified in the literature review.
• Discussion: Examine the implications of the findings, including strengths, limitations, and areas for further examination.
• Conclusion: Recapitulate the main findings of the review and their implications for future research, policy, or practice.

Pros and Cons of Scoping Literature Review

• Provides a comprehensive overview of existing literature
• Helps to identify gaps and areas for further research
• Suitable for exploring broad or complex research questions
• Doesn’t provide the depth of analysis offered by systematic reviews
• Subject to researcher bias in study selection and data extraction
• Requires careful consideration of literature search strategies and inclusion criteria to ensure comprehensiveness and validity.

In short, a scoping review helps map the literature on developing or emerging topics and identifying gaps. It might be considered as a step before conducting another type of review, such as a systematic review. Basically, acts as a precursor for other literature reviews.

Example of a Well-Executed Scoping Literature Review

Paper title: Health Chatbots in Africa Literature: A Scoping Review

Check out the key differences between Systematic and Scoping reviews — Evaluating literature review: systematic vs. scoping reviews

4. Integrative Literature Review

Integrative Literature Review (ILR) is a type of literature review that proposes a distinctive way to analyze and synthesize existing literature on a specific topic, providing a thorough understanding of research and identifying potential gaps for future research.

Unlike a systematic review, which emphasizes quantitative studies and follows strict inclusion criteria, an ILR embraces a more pliable approach. It works beyond simply summarizing findings — it critically analyzes, integrates, and interprets research from various methodologies (qualitative, quantitative, mixed methods) to provide a deeper understanding of the research landscape. ILRs provide a holistic and systematic overview of existing research, integrating findings from various methodologies. ILRs are ideal for exploring intricate research issues, examining manifold perspectives, and developing new research questions.

Steps to Conduct an Integrative Literature Review

• Identify the research question: Clearly define the research question or topic of interest as formulating a clear and focused research question is critical to leading the entire review process.
• Literature search strategy: Employ systematic search techniques to locate relevant literature across various databases and sources.
• Evaluate the quality of the included studies : Critically assess the methodology, rigor, and validity of each study by applying inclusion and exclusion criteria to filter and select studies aligned with the research objectives.
• Data Extraction: Extract relevant data from selected studies using a structured approach.
• Synthesize the findings : Thoroughly analyze the selected literature, identify key themes, and synthesize findings to derive noteworthy insights.
• Critical appraisal: Critically evaluate the quality and validity of qualitative research and included studies by using BMC medical research methodology.
• Interpret and present your findings: Discuss the purpose and implications of your analysis, spotlighting key insights and limitations. Organize and present the findings coherently and systematically.

Structure of an Integrative Literature Review

• Introduction : Provide an overview of the research topic and the purpose of the integrative review.
• Methods: Describe the opted literature search strategy, selection criteria, and data extraction process.
• Results: Present the synthesized findings, including key themes, patterns, and contradictions.
• Discussion: Interpret the findings about the research question, emphasizing implications for theory, practice, and prospective research.
• Conclusion: Summarize the main findings, limitations, and contributions of the integrative review.

Pros and Cons of Integrative Literature Review

• Informs evidence-based practice and policy to the relevant stakeholders of the research.
• Contributes to theory development and methodological advancement, especially in the healthcare arena.
• Integrates diverse perspectives and findings
• Time-consuming process due to the extensive literature search and synthesis
• Requires advanced analytical and critical thinking skills
• Potential for bias in study selection and interpretation
• The quality of included studies may vary, affecting the validity of the review

Example of Integrative Literature Reviews

Paper Title: An Integrative Literature Review: The Dual Impact of Technological Tools on Health and Technostress Among Older Workers

5. Rapid Literature Review

A Rapid Literature Review (RLR) is the fastest type of literature review which makes use of a streamlined approach for synthesizing literature summaries, offering a quicker and more focused alternative to traditional systematic reviews. Despite employing identical research methods, it often simplifies or omits specific steps to expedite the process. It allows researchers to gain valuable insights into current research trends and identify key findings within a shorter timeframe, often ranging from a few days to a few weeks — unlike traditional literature reviews, which may take months or even years to complete.

When to Consider a Rapid Literature Review?

• When time impediments demand a swift summary of existing research
• For emerging topics where the latest literature requires quick evaluation
• To report pilot studies or preliminary research before embarking on a comprehensive systematic review

Steps to Conduct a Rapid Literature Review

• Define the research question or topic of interest. A well-defined question guides the search process and helps researchers focus on relevant studies.
• Determine key databases and sources of relevant literature to ensure comprehensive coverage.
• Develop literature search strategies using appropriate keywords and filters to fetch a pool of potential scientific articles.
• Screen search results based on predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria.
• Extract and summarize relevant information from the above-preferred studies.
• Synthesize findings to identify key themes, patterns, or gaps in the literature.
• Prepare a concise report or a summary of the RLR findings.

Structure of a Rapid Literature Review

An effective structure of an RLR typically includes the following sections:

• Introduction: Briefly introduce the research topic and objectives of the RLR.
• Methodology: Describe the search strategy, inclusion and exclusion criteria, and data extraction process.
• Results: Present a summary of the findings, including key themes or patterns identified.
• Discussion: Interpret the findings, discuss implications, and highlight any limitations or areas for further research
• Conclusion: Summarize the key findings and their implications for practice or future research

Pros and Cons of Rapid Literature Review

• RLRs can be completed quickly, authorizing timely decision-making
• RLRs are a cost-effective approach since they require fewer resources compared to traditional literature reviews
• Offers great accessibility as RLRs provide prompt access to synthesized evidence for stakeholders
• RLRs are flexible as they can be easily adapted for various research contexts and objectives
• RLR reports are limited and restricted, not as in-depth as systematic reviews, and do not provide comprehensive coverage of the literature compared to traditional reviews.
• Susceptible to bias because of the expedited nature of RLRs. It would increase the chance of overlooking relevant studies or biases in the selection process.
• Due to time constraints, RLR findings might not be robust enough as compared to systematic reviews.

Example of a Well-Executed Rapid Literature Review

Paper Title: What Is the Impact of ChatGPT on Education? A Rapid Review of the Literature

A Summary of Literature Review Types

Tools and Resources for Conducting Different Types of Literature Reviews

Online scientific databases.

Platforms such as SciSpace , PubMed , Scopus , Elsevier , and Web of Science provide access to a vast array of scholarly literature, facilitating the search and data retrieval process.

Reference management software

Tools like SciSpace Citation Generator , EndNote, Zotero , and Mendeley assist researchers in organizing, annotating, and citing relevant literature, streamlining the review process altogether.

Automate Literature Review with AI tools

Automate the literature review process by using tools like SciSpace literature review which helps you compare and contrast multiple papers all on one screen in an easy-to-read matrix format. You can effortlessly analyze and interpret the review findings tailored to your study. It also supports the review in 75+ languages, making it more manageable even for non-English speakers.

Goes without saying — literature review plays a pivotal role in academic research to identify the current trends and provide insights to pave the way for future research endeavors. Different types of literature review has their own strengths and limitations, making them suitable for different research designs and contexts. Whether conducting a narrative review, systematic review, scoping review, integrative review, or rapid literature review, researchers must cautiously consider the objectives, resources, and the nature of the research topic.

If you’re currently working on a literature review and still adopting a manual and traditional approach, switch to the automated AI literature review workspace and transform your traditional literature review into a rapid one by extracting all the latest and relevant data for your research!

There you go!

Frequently Asked Questions

Narrative reviews give a general overview of a topic based on the author's knowledge. They may lack clear criteria and can be biased. On the other hand, systematic reviews aim to answer specific research questions by following strict methods. They're thorough but time-consuming.

A systematic review collects and analyzes existing research to provide an overview of a topic, while a meta-analysis statistically combines data from multiple studies to draw conclusions about the overall effect of an intervention or relationship between variables.

A systematic review thoroughly analyzes existing research on a specific topic using strict methods. In contrast, a scoping review offers a broader overview of the literature without evaluating individual studies in depth.

A systematic review thoroughly examines existing research using a rigorous process, while a rapid review provides a quicker summary of evidence, often by simplifying some of the systematic review steps to meet shorter timelines.

A systematic review carefully examines many studies on a single topic using specific guidelines. Conversely, an integrative review blends various types of research to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the topic.

You might also like

标题 ：人工智能在系统文献综述中的作用

Papel de la IA en la revisión sistemática de la literatura

Rôle de l'IA dans l'analyse systématique de la littérature

• University of Texas Libraries

Literature Reviews

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

What is a Literature Review?

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

A literature review should: 

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

From  S age Research Methods

Purpose of a Literature Review

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

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

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

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

Limitations of a Literature Review

Some of the limitations of a literature review are:

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

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

Librarian Assistance

For help, please contact the librarian for your subject area.  We have a guide to library specialists by subject .

• Last Updated: Aug 26, 2024 5:59 AM
• URL: https://guides.lib.utexas.edu/literaturereviews

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

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

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

What are Literature Reviews?

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

Goals of Literature Reviews

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

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

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

What kinds of sources require a Literature Review?

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

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

Types of Literature Reviews

What kinds of literature reviews are written?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Literature Reviews in the Health Sciences

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

What Is A Literature Review?

A plain-language explainer (with examples).

By:  Derek Jansen (MBA) & Kerryn Warren (PhD) | June 2020 (Updated May 2023)

If you’re faced with writing a dissertation or thesis, chances are you’ve encountered the term “literature review” . If you’re on this page, you’re probably not 100% what the literature review is all about. The good news is that you’ve come to the right place.

Literature Review 101

• What (exactly) is a literature review
• What’s the purpose of the literature review chapter
• How to find high-quality resources
• How to structure your literature review chapter
• Example of an actual literature review

What is a literature review?

The word “literature review” can refer to two related things that are part of the broader literature review process. The first is the task of  reviewing the literature  – i.e. sourcing and reading through the existing research relating to your research topic. The second is the  actual chapter  that you write up in your dissertation, thesis or research project. Let’s look at each of them:

Reviewing the literature

The first step of any literature review is to hunt down and  read through the existing research  that’s relevant to your research topic. To do this, you’ll use a combination of tools (we’ll discuss some of these later) to find journal articles, books, ebooks, research reports, dissertations, theses and any other credible sources of information that relate to your topic. You’ll then  summarise and catalogue these  for easy reference when you write up your literature review chapter. 

The literature review chapter

The second step of the literature review is to write the actual literature review chapter (this is usually the second chapter in a typical dissertation or thesis structure ). At the simplest level, the literature review chapter is an  overview of the key literature  that’s relevant to your research topic. This chapter should provide a smooth-flowing discussion of what research has already been done, what is known, what is unknown and what is contested in relation to your research topic. So, you can think of it as an  integrated review of the state of knowledge  around your research topic. 

What’s the purpose of a literature review?

The literature review chapter has a few important functions within your dissertation, thesis or research project. Let’s take a look at these:

Purpose #1 – Demonstrate your topic knowledge

The first function of the literature review chapter is, quite simply, to show the reader (or marker) that you  know what you’re talking about . In other words, a good literature review chapter demonstrates that you’ve read the relevant existing research and understand what’s going on – who’s said what, what’s agreed upon, disagreed upon and so on. This needs to be  more than just a summary  of who said what – it needs to integrate the existing research to  show how it all fits together  and what’s missing (which leads us to purpose #2, next). 

Purpose #2 – Reveal the research gap that you’ll fill

The second function of the literature review chapter is to  show what’s currently missing  from the existing research, to lay the foundation for your own research topic. In other words, your literature review chapter needs to show that there are currently “missing pieces” in terms of the bigger puzzle, and that  your study will fill one of those research gaps . By doing this, you are showing that your research topic is original and will help contribute to the body of knowledge. In other words, the literature review helps justify your research topic.  

Purpose #3 – Lay the foundation for your conceptual framework

The third function of the literature review is to form the  basis for a conceptual framework . Not every research topic will necessarily have a conceptual framework, but if your topic does require one, it needs to be rooted in your literature review. 

For example, let’s say your research aims to identify the drivers of a certain outcome – the factors which contribute to burnout in office workers. In this case, you’d likely develop a conceptual framework which details the potential factors (e.g. long hours, excessive stress, etc), as well as the outcome (burnout). Those factors would need to emerge from the literature review chapter – they can’t just come from your gut! 

So, in this case, the literature review chapter would uncover each of the potential factors (based on previous studies about burnout), which would then be modelled into a framework. 

Purpose #4 – To inform your methodology

The fourth function of the literature review is to  inform the choice of methodology  for your own research. As we’ve  discussed on the Grad Coach blog , your choice of methodology will be heavily influenced by your research aims, objectives and questions . Given that you’ll be reviewing studies covering a topic close to yours, it makes sense that you could learn a lot from their (well-considered) methodologies.

So, when you’re reviewing the literature, you’ll need to  pay close attention to the research design , methodology and methods used in similar studies, and use these to inform your methodology. Quite often, you’ll be able to  “borrow” from previous studies . This is especially true for quantitative studies , as you can use previously tried and tested measures and scales. 

How do I find articles for my literature review?

Finding quality journal articles is essential to crafting a rock-solid literature review. As you probably already know, not all research is created equally, and so you need to make sure that your literature review is  built on credible research . 

We could write an entire post on how to find quality literature (actually, we have ), but a good starting point is Google Scholar . Google Scholar is essentially the academic equivalent of Google, using Google’s powerful search capabilities to find relevant journal articles and reports. It certainly doesn’t cover every possible resource, but it’s a very useful way to get started on your literature review journey, as it will very quickly give you a good indication of what the  most popular pieces of research  are in your field.

One downside of Google Scholar is that it’s merely a search engine – that is, it lists the articles, but oftentimes  it doesn’t host the articles . So you’ll often hit a paywall when clicking through to journal websites. 

Thankfully, your university should provide you with access to their library, so you can find the article titles using Google Scholar and then search for them by name in your university’s online library. Your university may also provide you with access to  ResearchGate , which is another great source for existing research. 

Remember, the correct search keywords will be super important to get the right information from the start. So, pay close attention to the keywords used in the journal articles you read and use those keywords to search for more articles. If you can’t find a spoon in the kitchen, you haven’t looked in the right drawer. 

Need a helping hand?

How should I structure my literature review?

Unfortunately, there’s no generic universal answer for this one. The structure of your literature review will depend largely on your topic area and your research aims and objectives.

You could potentially structure your literature review chapter according to theme, group, variables , chronologically or per concepts in your field of research. We explain the main approaches to structuring your literature review here . You can also download a copy of our free literature review template to help you establish an initial structure.

In general, it’s also a good idea to start wide (i.e. the big-picture-level) and then narrow down, ending your literature review close to your research questions . However, there’s no universal one “right way” to structure your literature review. The most important thing is not to discuss your sources one after the other like a list – as we touched on earlier, your literature review needs to synthesise the research , not summarise it .

Ultimately, you need to craft your literature review so that it conveys the most important information effectively – it needs to tell a logical story in a digestible way. It’s no use starting off with highly technical terms and then only explaining what these terms mean later. Always assume your reader is not a subject matter expert and hold their hand through a journe y of the literature while keeping the functions of the literature review chapter (which we discussed earlier) front of mind.

Example of a literature review

In the video below, we walk you through a high-quality literature review from a dissertation that earned full distinction. This will give you a clearer view of what a strong literature review looks like in practice and hopefully provide some inspiration for your own. 

Wrapping Up

In this post, we’ve (hopefully) answered the question, “ what is a literature review? “. We’ve also considered the purpose and functions of the literature review, as well as how to find literature and how to structure the literature review chapter. If you’re keen to learn more, check out the literature review section of the Grad Coach blog , as well as our detailed video post covering how to write a literature review . 

Psst… there’s more!

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

16 Comments

Thanks for this review. It narrates what’s not been taught as tutors are always in a early to finish their classes.

Thanks for the kind words, Becky. Good luck with your literature review 🙂

This website is amazing, it really helps break everything down. Thank you, I would have been lost without it.

This is review is amazing. I benefited from it a lot and hope others visiting this website will benefit too.

Timothy T. Chol [email protected]

Thank you very much for the guiding in literature review I learn and benefited a lot this make my journey smooth I’ll recommend this site to my friends

This was so useful. Thank you so much.

Hi, Concept was explained nicely by both of you. Thanks a lot for sharing it. It will surely help research scholars to start their Research Journey.

The review is really helpful to me especially during this period of covid-19 pandemic when most universities in my country only offer online classes. Great stuff

Great Brief Explanation, thanks

So helpful to me as a student

GradCoach is a fantastic site with brilliant and modern minds behind it.. I spent weeks decoding the substantial academic Jargon and grounding my initial steps on the research process, which could be shortened to a couple of days through the Gradcoach. Thanks again!

This is an amazing talk. I paved way for myself as a researcher. Thank you GradCoach!

Well-presented overview of the literature!

This was brilliant. So clear. Thank you

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

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

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

• Print Friendly

Research Methods

• Getting Started
• Literature Review Research
• Research Design
• Research Design By Discipline
• SAGE Research Methods
• Teaching with SAGE Research Methods

Literature Review

• What is a Literature Review?
• What is NOT a Literature Review?
• Purposes of a Literature Review
• Types of Literature Reviews
• Literature Reviews vs. Systematic Reviews
• Systematic vs. Meta-Analysis

Literature Review  is a comprehensive survey of the works published in a particular field of study or line of research, usually over a specific period of time, in the form of an in-depth, critical bibliographic essay or annotated list in which attention is drawn to the most significant works.

Also, we can define a literature review as the collected body of scholarly works related to a topic:

• Summarizes and analyzes previous research relevant to a topic
• Includes scholarly books and articles published in academic journals
• Can be an specific scholarly paper or a section in a research paper

The objective of a Literature Review is to find previous published scholarly works relevant to an specific topic

• Help gather ideas or information
• Keep up to date in current trends and findings
• Help develop new questions

A literature review is important because it:

• Explains the background of research on a topic.
• Demonstrates why a topic is significant to a subject area.
• Helps focus your own research questions or problems
• Discovers relationships between research studies/ideas.
• Suggests unexplored ideas or populations
• Identifies major themes, concepts, and researchers on a topic.
• Tests assumptions; may help counter preconceived ideas and remove unconscious bias.
• Identifies critical gaps, points of disagreement, or potentially flawed methodology or theoretical approaches.
• Indicates potential directions for future research.

All content in this section is from Literature Review Research from Old Dominion University 

Keep in mind the following, a literature review is NOT:

Not an essay 

Not an annotated bibliography  in which you summarize each article that you have reviewed.  A literature review goes beyond basic summarizing to focus on the critical analysis of the reviewed works and their relationship to your research question.

Not a research paper   where you select resources to support one side of an issue versus another.  A lit review should explain and consider all sides of an argument in order to avoid bias, and areas of agreement and disagreement should be highlighted.

A literature review serves several purposes. For example, it

• provides thorough knowledge of previous studies; introduces seminal works.
• helps focus one’s own research topic.
• identifies a conceptual framework for one’s own research questions or problems; indicates potential directions for future research.
• suggests previously unused or underused methodologies, designs, quantitative and qualitative strategies.
• identifies gaps in previous studies; identifies flawed methodologies and/or theoretical approaches; avoids replication of mistakes.
• helps the researcher avoid repetition of earlier research.
• suggests unexplored populations.
• determines whether past studies agree or disagree; identifies controversy in the literature.
• tests assumptions; may help counter preconceived ideas and remove unconscious bias.

As Kennedy (2007) notes*, it is important to think of knowledge in a given field as consisting of three layers. First, there are the primary studies that researchers conduct and publish. Second are the reviews of those studies that summarize and offer new interpretations built from and often extending beyond the original studies. Third, there are the perceptions, conclusions, opinion, and interpretations that are shared informally that become part of the lore of field. In composing a literature review, it is important to note that it is often this third layer of knowledge that is cited as "true" even though it often has only a loose relationship to the primary studies and secondary literature reviews.

Given this, while literature reviews are designed to provide an overview and synthesis of pertinent sources you have explored, there are several approaches to how they can be done, depending upon the type of analysis underpinning your study. Listed below are definitions of types of literature reviews:

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

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

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

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

Systematic Review      This form consists of an overview of existing evidence pertinent to a clearly formulated research question, which uses pre-specified and standardized methods to identify and critically appraise relevant research, and to collect, report, and analyse data from the studies that are included in the review. Typically it focuses on a very specific empirical question, often posed in a cause-and-effect form, such as "To what extent does A contribute to B?"

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

* Kennedy, Mary M. "Defining a Literature."  Educational Researcher  36 (April 2007): 139-147.

All content in this section is from The Literature Review created by Dr. Robert Larabee USC

Robinson, P. and Lowe, J. (2015),  Literature reviews vs systematic reviews.  Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, 39: 103-103. doi: 10.1111/1753-6405.12393

What's in the name? The difference between a Systematic Review and a Literature Review, and why it matters . By Lynn Kysh from University of Southern California

Systematic review or meta-analysis?

A  systematic review  answers a defined research question by collecting and summarizing all empirical evidence that fits pre-specified eligibility criteria.

A  meta-analysis  is the use of statistical methods to summarize the results of these studies.

Systematic reviews, just like other research articles, can be of varying quality. They are a significant piece of work (the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination at York estimates that a team will take 9-24 months), and to be useful to other researchers and practitioners they should have:

• clearly stated objectives with pre-defined eligibility criteria for studies
• explicit, reproducible methodology
• a systematic search that attempts to identify all studies
• assessment of the validity of the findings of the included studies (e.g. risk of bias)
• systematic presentation, and synthesis, of the characteristics and findings of the included studies

Not all systematic reviews contain meta-analysis. 

Meta-analysis is the use of statistical methods to summarize the results of independent studies. By combining information from all relevant studies, meta-analysis can provide more precise estimates of the effects of health care than those derived from the individual studies included within a review.  More information on meta-analyses can be found in  Cochrane Handbook, Chapter 9 .

A meta-analysis goes beyond critique and integration and conducts secondary statistical analysis on the outcomes of similar studies.  It is a systematic review that uses quantitative methods to synthesize and summarize the results.

An advantage of a meta-analysis is the ability to be completely objective in evaluating research findings.  Not all topics, however, have sufficient research evidence to allow a meta-analysis to be conducted.  In that case, an integrative review is an appropriate strategy. 

Some of the content in this section is from Systematic reviews and meta-analyses: step by step guide created by Kate McAllister.

• << Previous: Getting Started
• Next: Research Design >>
• Last Updated: Jul 15, 2024 10:34 AM
• URL: https://guides.lib.udel.edu/researchmethods

Writing Research Background

Research background is a brief outline of the most important studies that have been conducted so far presented in a chronological order. Research background part in introduction chapter can be also headed ‘Background of the Study.” Research background should also include a brief discussion of major theories and models related to the research problem.

Specifically, when writing research background you can discuss major theories and models related to your research problem in a chronological order to outline historical developments in the research area.  When writing research background, you also need to demonstrate how your research relates to what has been done so far in the research area.

Research background is written after the literature review. Therefore, literature review has to be the first and the longest stage in the research process, even before the formulation of research aims and objectives, right after the selection of the research area. Once the research area is selected, the literature review is commenced in order to identify gaps in the research area.

Research aims and objectives need to be closely associated with the elimination of this gap in the literature. The main difference between background of the study and literature review is that the former only provides general information about what has been done so far in the research area, whereas the latter elaborates and critically reviews previous works.

John Dudovskiy

Literature Reviews

What this handout is about.

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

Introduction

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

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

What is a literature review, then?

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

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

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

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

Why do we write literature reviews?

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

Who writes these things, anyway?

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

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

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

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

Find models

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

Narrow your topic

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

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

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

Consider whether your sources are current

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

Strategies for writing the literature review

Find a focus.

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

Convey it to your reader

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

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

Consider organization

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

First, cover the basic categories

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

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

Organizing the body

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Begin composing

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

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

Use evidence

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

Be selective

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

Use quotes sparingly

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

Summarize and synthesize

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

Keep your own voice

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

Use caution when paraphrasing

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

Revise, revise, revise

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

Works consulted

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Make a Gift

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

The PMC website is updating on October 15, 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• CBE Life Sci Educ
• v.21(3); Fall 2022

Literature Reviews, Theoretical Frameworks, and Conceptual Frameworks: An Introduction for New Biology Education Researchers

Julie a. luft.

† Department of Mathematics, Social Studies, and Science Education, Mary Frances Early College of Education, University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602-7124

Sophia Jeong

‡ Department of Teaching & Learning, College of Education & Human Ecology, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43210

Robert Idsardi

§ Department of Biology, Eastern Washington University, Cheney, WA 99004

Grant Gardner

∥ Department of Biology, Middle Tennessee State University, Murfreesboro, TN 37132

Associated Data

To frame their work, biology education researchers need to consider the role of literature reviews, theoretical frameworks, and conceptual frameworks as critical elements of the research and writing process. However, these elements can be confusing for scholars new to education research. This Research Methods article is designed to provide an overview of each of these elements and delineate the purpose of each in the educational research process. We describe what biology education researchers should consider as they conduct literature reviews, identify theoretical frameworks, and construct conceptual frameworks. Clarifying these different components of educational research studies can be helpful to new biology education researchers and the biology education research community at large in situating their work in the broader scholarly literature.

INTRODUCTION

Discipline-based education research (DBER) involves the purposeful and situated study of teaching and learning in specific disciplinary areas ( Singer et al. , 2012 ). Studies in DBER are guided by research questions that reflect disciplines’ priorities and worldviews. Researchers can use quantitative data, qualitative data, or both to answer these research questions through a variety of methodological traditions. Across all methodologies, there are different methods associated with planning and conducting educational research studies that include the use of surveys, interviews, observations, artifacts, or instruments. Ensuring the coherence of these elements to the discipline’s perspective also involves situating the work in the broader scholarly literature. The tools for doing this include literature reviews, theoretical frameworks, and conceptual frameworks. However, the purpose and function of each of these elements is often confusing to new education researchers. The goal of this article is to introduce new biology education researchers to these three important elements important in DBER scholarship and the broader educational literature.

The first element we discuss is a review of research (literature reviews), which highlights the need for a specific research question, study problem, or topic of investigation. Literature reviews situate the relevance of the study within a topic and a field. The process may seem familiar to science researchers entering DBER fields, but new researchers may still struggle in conducting the review. Booth et al. (2016b) highlight some of the challenges novice education researchers face when conducting a review of literature. They point out that novice researchers struggle in deciding how to focus the review, determining the scope of articles needed in the review, and knowing how to be critical of the articles in the review. Overcoming these challenges (and others) can help novice researchers construct a sound literature review that can inform the design of the study and help ensure the work makes a contribution to the field.

The second and third highlighted elements are theoretical and conceptual frameworks. These guide biology education research (BER) studies, and may be less familiar to science researchers. These elements are important in shaping the construction of new knowledge. Theoretical frameworks offer a way to explain and interpret the studied phenomenon, while conceptual frameworks clarify assumptions about the studied phenomenon. Despite the importance of these constructs in educational research, biology educational researchers have noted the limited use of theoretical or conceptual frameworks in published work ( DeHaan, 2011 ; Dirks, 2011 ; Lo et al. , 2019 ). In reviewing articles published in CBE—Life Sciences Education ( LSE ) between 2015 and 2019, we found that fewer than 25% of the research articles had a theoretical or conceptual framework (see the Supplemental Information), and at times there was an inconsistent use of theoretical and conceptual frameworks. Clearly, these frameworks are challenging for published biology education researchers, which suggests the importance of providing some initial guidance to new biology education researchers.

Fortunately, educational researchers have increased their explicit use of these frameworks over time, and this is influencing educational research in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields. For instance, a quick search for theoretical or conceptual frameworks in the abstracts of articles in Educational Research Complete (a common database for educational research) in STEM fields demonstrates a dramatic change over the last 20 years: from only 778 articles published between 2000 and 2010 to 5703 articles published between 2010 and 2020, a more than sevenfold increase. Greater recognition of the importance of these frameworks is contributing to DBER authors being more explicit about such frameworks in their studies.

Collectively, literature reviews, theoretical frameworks, and conceptual frameworks work to guide methodological decisions and the elucidation of important findings. Each offers a different perspective on the problem of study and is an essential element in all forms of educational research. As new researchers seek to learn about these elements, they will find different resources, a variety of perspectives, and many suggestions about the construction and use of these elements. The wide range of available information can overwhelm the new researcher who just wants to learn the distinction between these elements or how to craft them adequately.

Our goal in writing this paper is not to offer specific advice about how to write these sections in scholarly work. Instead, we wanted to introduce these elements to those who are new to BER and who are interested in better distinguishing one from the other. In this paper, we share the purpose of each element in BER scholarship, along with important points on its construction. We also provide references for additional resources that may be beneficial to better understanding each element. Table 1 summarizes the key distinctions among these elements.

Comparison of literature reviews, theoretical frameworks, and conceptual reviews

This article is written for the new biology education researcher who is just learning about these different elements or for scientists looking to become more involved in BER. It is a result of our own work as science education and biology education researchers, whether as graduate students and postdoctoral scholars or newly hired and established faculty members. This is the article we wish had been available as we started to learn about these elements or discussed them with new educational researchers in biology.

LITERATURE REVIEWS

Purpose of a literature review.

A literature review is foundational to any research study in education or science. In education, a well-conceptualized and well-executed review provides a summary of the research that has already been done on a specific topic and identifies questions that remain to be answered, thus illustrating the current research project’s potential contribution to the field and the reasoning behind the methodological approach selected for the study ( Maxwell, 2012 ). BER is an evolving disciplinary area that is redefining areas of conceptual emphasis as well as orientations toward teaching and learning (e.g., Labov et al. , 2010 ; American Association for the Advancement of Science, 2011 ; Nehm, 2019 ). As a result, building comprehensive, critical, purposeful, and concise literature reviews can be a challenge for new biology education researchers.

Building Literature Reviews

There are different ways to approach and construct a literature review. Booth et al. (2016a) provide an overview that includes, for example, scoping reviews, which are focused only on notable studies and use a basic method of analysis, and integrative reviews, which are the result of exhaustive literature searches across different genres. Underlying each of these different review processes are attention to the s earch process, a ppraisa l of articles, s ynthesis of the literature, and a nalysis: SALSA ( Booth et al. , 2016a ). This useful acronym can help the researcher focus on the process while building a specific type of review.

However, new educational researchers often have questions about literature reviews that are foundational to SALSA or other approaches. Common questions concern determining which literature pertains to the topic of study or the role of the literature review in the design of the study. This section addresses such questions broadly while providing general guidance for writing a narrative literature review that evaluates the most pertinent studies.

The literature review process should begin before the research is conducted. As Boote and Beile (2005 , p. 3) suggested, researchers should be “scholars before researchers.” They point out that having a good working knowledge of the proposed topic helps illuminate avenues of study. Some subject areas have a deep body of work to read and reflect upon, providing a strong foundation for developing the research question(s). For instance, the teaching and learning of evolution is an area of long-standing interest in the BER community, generating many studies (e.g., Perry et al. , 2008 ; Barnes and Brownell, 2016 ) and reviews of research (e.g., Sickel and Friedrichsen, 2013 ; Ziadie and Andrews, 2018 ). Emerging areas of BER include the affective domain, issues of transfer, and metacognition ( Singer et al. , 2012 ). Many studies in these areas are transdisciplinary and not always specific to biology education (e.g., Rodrigo-Peiris et al. , 2018 ; Kolpikova et al. , 2019 ). These newer areas may require reading outside BER; fortunately, summaries of some of these topics can be found in the Current Insights section of the LSE website.

In focusing on a specific problem within a broader research strand, a new researcher will likely need to examine research outside BER. Depending upon the area of study, the expanded reading list might involve a mix of BER, DBER, and educational research studies. Determining the scope of the reading is not always straightforward. A simple way to focus one’s reading is to create a “summary phrase” or “research nugget,” which is a very brief descriptive statement about the study. It should focus on the essence of the study, for example, “first-year nonmajor students’ understanding of evolution,” “metacognitive prompts to enhance learning during biochemistry,” or “instructors’ inquiry-based instructional practices after professional development programming.” This type of phrase should help a new researcher identify two or more areas to review that pertain to the study. Focusing on recent research in the last 5 years is a good first step. Additional studies can be identified by reading relevant works referenced in those articles. It is also important to read seminal studies that are more than 5 years old. Reading a range of studies should give the researcher the necessary command of the subject in order to suggest a research question.

Given that the research question(s) arise from the literature review, the review should also substantiate the selected methodological approach. The review and research question(s) guide the researcher in determining how to collect and analyze data. Often the methodological approach used in a study is selected to contribute knowledge that expands upon what has been published previously about the topic (see Institute of Education Sciences and National Science Foundation, 2013 ). An emerging topic of study may need an exploratory approach that allows for a description of the phenomenon and development of a potential theory. This could, but not necessarily, require a methodological approach that uses interviews, observations, surveys, or other instruments. An extensively studied topic may call for the additional understanding of specific factors or variables; this type of study would be well suited to a verification or a causal research design. These could entail a methodological approach that uses valid and reliable instruments, observations, or interviews to determine an effect in the studied event. In either of these examples, the researcher(s) may use a qualitative, quantitative, or mixed methods methodological approach.

Even with a good research question, there is still more reading to be done. The complexity and focus of the research question dictates the depth and breadth of the literature to be examined. Questions that connect multiple topics can require broad literature reviews. For instance, a study that explores the impact of a biology faculty learning community on the inquiry instruction of faculty could have the following review areas: learning communities among biology faculty, inquiry instruction among biology faculty, and inquiry instruction among biology faculty as a result of professional learning. Biology education researchers need to consider whether their literature review requires studies from different disciplines within or outside DBER. For the example given, it would be fruitful to look at research focused on learning communities with faculty in STEM fields or in general education fields that result in instructional change. It is important not to be too narrow or too broad when reading. When the conclusions of articles start to sound similar or no new insights are gained, the researcher likely has a good foundation for a literature review. This level of reading should allow the researcher to demonstrate a mastery in understanding the researched topic, explain the suitability of the proposed research approach, and point to the need for the refined research question(s).

The literature review should include the researcher’s evaluation and critique of the selected studies. A researcher may have a large collection of studies, but not all of the studies will follow standards important in the reporting of empirical work in the social sciences. The American Educational Research Association ( Duran et al. , 2006 ), for example, offers a general discussion about standards for such work: an adequate review of research informing the study, the existence of sound and appropriate data collection and analysis methods, and appropriate conclusions that do not overstep or underexplore the analyzed data. The Institute of Education Sciences and National Science Foundation (2013) also offer Common Guidelines for Education Research and Development that can be used to evaluate collected studies.

Because not all journals adhere to such standards, it is important that a researcher review each study to determine the quality of published research, per the guidelines suggested earlier. In some instances, the research may be fatally flawed. Examples of such flaws include data that do not pertain to the question, a lack of discussion about the data collection, poorly constructed instruments, or an inadequate analysis. These types of errors result in studies that are incomplete, error-laden, or inaccurate and should be excluded from the review. Most studies have limitations, and the author(s) often make them explicit. For instance, there may be an instructor effect, recognized bias in the analysis, or issues with the sample population. Limitations are usually addressed by the research team in some way to ensure a sound and acceptable research process. Occasionally, the limitations associated with the study can be significant and not addressed adequately, which leaves a consequential decision in the hands of the researcher. Providing critiques of studies in the literature review process gives the reader confidence that the researcher has carefully examined relevant work in preparation for the study and, ultimately, the manuscript.

A solid literature review clearly anchors the proposed study in the field and connects the research question(s), the methodological approach, and the discussion. Reviewing extant research leads to research questions that will contribute to what is known in the field. By summarizing what is known, the literature review points to what needs to be known, which in turn guides decisions about methodology. Finally, notable findings of the new study are discussed in reference to those described in the literature review.

Within published BER studies, literature reviews can be placed in different locations in an article. When included in the introductory section of the study, the first few paragraphs of the manuscript set the stage, with the literature review following the opening paragraphs. Cooper et al. (2019) illustrate this approach in their study of course-based undergraduate research experiences (CUREs). An introduction discussing the potential of CURES is followed by an analysis of the existing literature relevant to the design of CUREs that allows for novel student discoveries. Within this review, the authors point out contradictory findings among research on novel student discoveries. This clarifies the need for their study, which is described and highlighted through specific research aims.

A literature reviews can also make up a separate section in a paper. For example, the introduction to Todd et al. (2019) illustrates the need for their research topic by highlighting the potential of learning progressions (LPs) and suggesting that LPs may help mitigate learning loss in genetics. At the end of the introduction, the authors state their specific research questions. The review of literature following this opening section comprises two subsections. One focuses on learning loss in general and examines a variety of studies and meta-analyses from the disciplines of medical education, mathematics, and reading. The second section focuses specifically on LPs in genetics and highlights student learning in the midst of LPs. These separate reviews provide insights into the stated research question.

Suggestions and Advice

A well-conceptualized, comprehensive, and critical literature review reveals the understanding of the topic that the researcher brings to the study. Literature reviews should not be so big that there is no clear area of focus; nor should they be so narrow that no real research question arises. The task for a researcher is to craft an efficient literature review that offers a critical analysis of published work, articulates the need for the study, guides the methodological approach to the topic of study, and provides an adequate foundation for the discussion of the findings.

In our own writing of literature reviews, there are often many drafts. An early draft may seem well suited to the study because the need for and approach to the study are well described. However, as the results of the study are analyzed and findings begin to emerge, the existing literature review may be inadequate and need revision. The need for an expanded discussion about the research area can result in the inclusion of new studies that support the explanation of a potential finding. The literature review may also prove to be too broad. Refocusing on a specific area allows for more contemplation of a finding.

It should be noted that there are different types of literature reviews, and many books and articles have been written about the different ways to embark on these types of reviews. Among these different resources, the following may be helpful in considering how to refine the review process for scholarly journals:

• Booth, A., Sutton, A., & Papaioannou, D. (2016a). Systemic approaches to a successful literature review (2nd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage. This book addresses different types of literature reviews and offers important suggestions pertaining to defining the scope of the literature review and assessing extant studies.
• Booth, W. C., Colomb, G. G., Williams, J. M., Bizup, J., & Fitzgerald, W. T. (2016b). The craft of research (4th ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. This book can help the novice consider how to make the case for an area of study. While this book is not specifically about literature reviews, it offers suggestions about making the case for your study.
• Galvan, J. L., & Galvan, M. C. (2017). Writing literature reviews: A guide for students of the social and behavioral sciences (7th ed.). Routledge. This book offers guidance on writing different types of literature reviews. For the novice researcher, there are useful suggestions for creating coherent literature reviews.

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORKS

Purpose of theoretical frameworks.

As new education researchers may be less familiar with theoretical frameworks than with literature reviews, this discussion begins with an analogy. Envision a biologist, chemist, and physicist examining together the dramatic effect of a fog tsunami over the ocean. A biologist gazing at this phenomenon may be concerned with the effect of fog on various species. A chemist may be interested in the chemical composition of the fog as water vapor condenses around bits of salt. A physicist may be focused on the refraction of light to make fog appear to be “sitting” above the ocean. While observing the same “objective event,” the scientists are operating under different theoretical frameworks that provide a particular perspective or “lens” for the interpretation of the phenomenon. Each of these scientists brings specialized knowledge, experiences, and values to this phenomenon, and these influence the interpretation of the phenomenon. The scientists’ theoretical frameworks influence how they design and carry out their studies and interpret their data.

Within an educational study, a theoretical framework helps to explain a phenomenon through a particular lens and challenges and extends existing knowledge within the limitations of that lens. Theoretical frameworks are explicitly stated by an educational researcher in the paper’s framework, theory, or relevant literature section. The framework shapes the types of questions asked, guides the method by which data are collected and analyzed, and informs the discussion of the results of the study. It also reveals the researcher’s subjectivities, for example, values, social experience, and viewpoint ( Allen, 2017 ). It is essential that a novice researcher learn to explicitly state a theoretical framework, because all research questions are being asked from the researcher’s implicit or explicit assumptions of a phenomenon of interest ( Schwandt, 2000 ).

Selecting Theoretical Frameworks

Theoretical frameworks are one of the most contemplated elements in our work in educational research. In this section, we share three important considerations for new scholars selecting a theoretical framework.

The first step in identifying a theoretical framework involves reflecting on the phenomenon within the study and the assumptions aligned with the phenomenon. The phenomenon involves the studied event. There are many possibilities, for example, student learning, instructional approach, or group organization. A researcher holds assumptions about how the phenomenon will be effected, influenced, changed, or portrayed. It is ultimately the researcher’s assumption(s) about the phenomenon that aligns with a theoretical framework. An example can help illustrate how a researcher’s reflection on the phenomenon and acknowledgment of assumptions can result in the identification of a theoretical framework.

In our example, a biology education researcher may be interested in exploring how students’ learning of difficult biological concepts can be supported by the interactions of group members. The phenomenon of interest is the interactions among the peers, and the researcher assumes that more knowledgeable students are important in supporting the learning of the group. As a result, the researcher may draw on Vygotsky’s (1978) sociocultural theory of learning and development that is focused on the phenomenon of student learning in a social setting. This theory posits the critical nature of interactions among students and between students and teachers in the process of building knowledge. A researcher drawing upon this framework holds the assumption that learning is a dynamic social process involving questions and explanations among students in the classroom and that more knowledgeable peers play an important part in the process of building conceptual knowledge.

It is important to state at this point that there are many different theoretical frameworks. Some frameworks focus on learning and knowing, while other theoretical frameworks focus on equity, empowerment, or discourse. Some frameworks are well articulated, and others are still being refined. For a new researcher, it can be challenging to find a theoretical framework. Two of the best ways to look for theoretical frameworks is through published works that highlight different frameworks.

When a theoretical framework is selected, it should clearly connect to all parts of the study. The framework should augment the study by adding a perspective that provides greater insights into the phenomenon. It should clearly align with the studies described in the literature review. For instance, a framework focused on learning would correspond to research that reported different learning outcomes for similar studies. The methods for data collection and analysis should also correspond to the framework. For instance, a study about instructional interventions could use a theoretical framework concerned with learning and could collect data about the effect of the intervention on what is learned. When the data are analyzed, the theoretical framework should provide added meaning to the findings, and the findings should align with the theoretical framework.

A study by Jensen and Lawson (2011) provides an example of how a theoretical framework connects different parts of the study. They compared undergraduate biology students in heterogeneous and homogeneous groups over the course of a semester. Jensen and Lawson (2011) assumed that learning involved collaboration and more knowledgeable peers, which made Vygotsky’s (1978) theory a good fit for their study. They predicted that students in heterogeneous groups would experience greater improvement in their reasoning abilities and science achievements with much of the learning guided by the more knowledgeable peers.

In the enactment of the study, they collected data about the instruction in traditional and inquiry-oriented classes, while the students worked in homogeneous or heterogeneous groups. To determine the effect of working in groups, the authors also measured students’ reasoning abilities and achievement. Each data-collection and analysis decision connected to understanding the influence of collaborative work.

Their findings highlighted aspects of Vygotsky’s (1978) theory of learning. One finding, for instance, posited that inquiry instruction, as a whole, resulted in reasoning and achievement gains. This links to Vygotsky (1978) , because inquiry instruction involves interactions among group members. A more nuanced finding was that group composition had a conditional effect. Heterogeneous groups performed better with more traditional and didactic instruction, regardless of the reasoning ability of the group members. Homogeneous groups worked better during interaction-rich activities for students with low reasoning ability. The authors attributed the variation to the different types of helping behaviors of students. High-performing students provided the answers, while students with low reasoning ability had to work collectively through the material. In terms of Vygotsky (1978) , this finding provided new insights into the learning context in which productive interactions can occur for students.

Another consideration in the selection and use of a theoretical framework pertains to its orientation to the study. This can result in the theoretical framework prioritizing individuals, institutions, and/or policies ( Anfara and Mertz, 2014 ). Frameworks that connect to individuals, for instance, could contribute to understanding their actions, learning, or knowledge. Institutional frameworks, on the other hand, offer insights into how institutions, organizations, or groups can influence individuals or materials. Policy theories provide ways to understand how national or local policies can dictate an emphasis on outcomes or instructional design. These different types of frameworks highlight different aspects in an educational setting, which influences the design of the study and the collection of data. In addition, these different frameworks offer a way to make sense of the data. Aligning the data collection and analysis with the framework ensures that a study is coherent and can contribute to the field.

New understandings emerge when different theoretical frameworks are used. For instance, Ebert-May et al. (2015) prioritized the individual level within conceptual change theory (see Posner et al. , 1982 ). In this theory, an individual’s knowledge changes when it no longer fits the phenomenon. Ebert-May et al. (2015) designed a professional development program challenging biology postdoctoral scholars’ existing conceptions of teaching. The authors reported that the biology postdoctoral scholars’ teaching practices became more student-centered as they were challenged to explain their instructional decision making. According to the theory, the biology postdoctoral scholars’ dissatisfaction in their descriptions of teaching and learning initiated change in their knowledge and instruction. These results reveal how conceptual change theory can explain the learning of participants and guide the design of professional development programming.

The communities of practice (CoP) theoretical framework ( Lave, 1988 ; Wenger, 1998 ) prioritizes the institutional level , suggesting that learning occurs when individuals learn from and contribute to the communities in which they reside. Grounded in the assumption of community learning, the literature on CoP suggests that, as individuals interact regularly with the other members of their group, they learn about the rules, roles, and goals of the community ( Allee, 2000 ). A study conducted by Gehrke and Kezar (2017) used the CoP framework to understand organizational change by examining the involvement of individual faculty engaged in a cross-institutional CoP focused on changing the instructional practice of faculty at each institution. In the CoP, faculty members were involved in enhancing instructional materials within their department, which aligned with an overarching goal of instituting instruction that embraced active learning. Not surprisingly, Gehrke and Kezar (2017) revealed that faculty who perceived the community culture as important in their work cultivated institutional change. Furthermore, they found that institutional change was sustained when key leaders served as mentors and provided support for faculty, and as faculty themselves developed into leaders. This study reveals the complexity of individual roles in a COP in order to support institutional instructional change.

It is important to explicitly state the theoretical framework used in a study, but elucidating a theoretical framework can be challenging for a new educational researcher. The literature review can help to identify an applicable theoretical framework. Focal areas of the review or central terms often connect to assumptions and assertions associated with the framework that pertain to the phenomenon of interest. Another way to identify a theoretical framework is self-reflection by the researcher on personal beliefs and understandings about the nature of knowledge the researcher brings to the study ( Lysaght, 2011 ). In stating one’s beliefs and understandings related to the study (e.g., students construct their knowledge, instructional materials support learning), an orientation becomes evident that will suggest a particular theoretical framework. Theoretical frameworks are not arbitrary , but purposefully selected.

With experience, a researcher may find expanded roles for theoretical frameworks. Researchers may revise an existing framework that has limited explanatory power, or they may decide there is a need to develop a new theoretical framework. These frameworks can emerge from a current study or the need to explain a phenomenon in a new way. Researchers may also find that multiple theoretical frameworks are necessary to frame and explore a problem, as different frameworks can provide different insights into a problem.

Finally, it is important to recognize that choosing “x” theoretical framework does not necessarily mean a researcher chooses “y” methodology and so on, nor is there a clear-cut, linear process in selecting a theoretical framework for one’s study. In part, the nonlinear process of identifying a theoretical framework is what makes understanding and using theoretical frameworks challenging. For the novice scholar, contemplating and understanding theoretical frameworks is essential. Fortunately, there are articles and books that can help:

• Creswell, J. W. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (5th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage. This book provides an overview of theoretical frameworks in general educational research.
• Ding, L. (2019). Theoretical perspectives of quantitative physics education research. Physical Review Physics Education Research , 15 (2), 020101-1–020101-13. This paper illustrates how a DBER field can use theoretical frameworks.
• Nehm, R. (2019). Biology education research: Building integrative frameworks for teaching and learning about living systems. Disciplinary and Interdisciplinary Science Education Research , 1 , ar15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s43031-019-0017-6 . This paper articulates the need for studies in BER to explicitly state theoretical frameworks and provides examples of potential studies.
• Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research & evaluation methods: Integrating theory and practice . Sage. This book also provides an overview of theoretical frameworks, but for both research and evaluation.

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORKS

Purpose of a conceptual framework.

A conceptual framework is a description of the way a researcher understands the factors and/or variables that are involved in the study and their relationships to one another. The purpose of a conceptual framework is to articulate the concepts under study using relevant literature ( Rocco and Plakhotnik, 2009 ) and to clarify the presumed relationships among those concepts ( Rocco and Plakhotnik, 2009 ; Anfara and Mertz, 2014 ). Conceptual frameworks are different from theoretical frameworks in both their breadth and grounding in established findings. Whereas a theoretical framework articulates the lens through which a researcher views the work, the conceptual framework is often more mechanistic and malleable.

Conceptual frameworks are broader, encompassing both established theories (i.e., theoretical frameworks) and the researchers’ own emergent ideas. Emergent ideas, for example, may be rooted in informal and/or unpublished observations from experience. These emergent ideas would not be considered a “theory” if they are not yet tested, supported by systematically collected evidence, and peer reviewed. However, they do still play an important role in the way researchers approach their studies. The conceptual framework allows authors to clearly describe their emergent ideas so that connections among ideas in the study and the significance of the study are apparent to readers.

Constructing Conceptual Frameworks

Including a conceptual framework in a research study is important, but researchers often opt to include either a conceptual or a theoretical framework. Either may be adequate, but both provide greater insight into the research approach. For instance, a research team plans to test a novel component of an existing theory. In their study, they describe the existing theoretical framework that informs their work and then present their own conceptual framework. Within this conceptual framework, specific topics portray emergent ideas that are related to the theory. Describing both frameworks allows readers to better understand the researchers’ assumptions, orientations, and understanding of concepts being investigated. For example, Connolly et al. (2018) included a conceptual framework that described how they applied a theoretical framework of social cognitive career theory (SCCT) to their study on teaching programs for doctoral students. In their conceptual framework, the authors described SCCT, explained how it applied to the investigation, and drew upon results from previous studies to justify the proposed connections between the theory and their emergent ideas.

In some cases, authors may be able to sufficiently describe their conceptualization of the phenomenon under study in an introduction alone, without a separate conceptual framework section. However, incomplete descriptions of how the researchers conceptualize the components of the study may limit the significance of the study by making the research less intelligible to readers. This is especially problematic when studying topics in which researchers use the same terms for different constructs or different terms for similar and overlapping constructs (e.g., inquiry, teacher beliefs, pedagogical content knowledge, or active learning). Authors must describe their conceptualization of a construct if the research is to be understandable and useful.

There are some key areas to consider regarding the inclusion of a conceptual framework in a study. To begin with, it is important to recognize that conceptual frameworks are constructed by the researchers conducting the study ( Rocco and Plakhotnik, 2009 ; Maxwell, 2012 ). This is different from theoretical frameworks that are often taken from established literature. Researchers should bring together ideas from the literature, but they may be influenced by their own experiences as a student and/or instructor, the shared experiences of others, or thought experiments as they construct a description, model, or representation of their understanding of the phenomenon under study. This is an exercise in intellectual organization and clarity that often considers what is learned, known, and experienced. The conceptual framework makes these constructs explicitly visible to readers, who may have different understandings of the phenomenon based on their prior knowledge and experience. There is no single method to go about this intellectual work.

Reeves et al. (2016) is an example of an article that proposed a conceptual framework about graduate teaching assistant professional development evaluation and research. The authors used existing literature to create a novel framework that filled a gap in current research and practice related to the training of graduate teaching assistants. This conceptual framework can guide the systematic collection of data by other researchers because the framework describes the relationships among various factors that influence teaching and learning. The Reeves et al. (2016) conceptual framework may be modified as additional data are collected and analyzed by other researchers. This is not uncommon, as conceptual frameworks can serve as catalysts for concerted research efforts that systematically explore a phenomenon (e.g., Reynolds et al. , 2012 ; Brownell and Kloser, 2015 ).

Sabel et al. (2017) used a conceptual framework in their exploration of how scaffolds, an external factor, interact with internal factors to support student learning. Their conceptual framework integrated principles from two theoretical frameworks, self-regulated learning and metacognition, to illustrate how the research team conceptualized students’ use of scaffolds in their learning ( Figure 1 ). Sabel et al. (2017) created this model using their interpretations of these two frameworks in the context of their teaching.

Conceptual framework from Sabel et al. (2017) .

A conceptual framework should describe the relationship among components of the investigation ( Anfara and Mertz, 2014 ). These relationships should guide the researcher’s methods of approaching the study ( Miles et al. , 2014 ) and inform both the data to be collected and how those data should be analyzed. Explicitly describing the connections among the ideas allows the researcher to justify the importance of the study and the rigor of the research design. Just as importantly, these frameworks help readers understand why certain components of a system were not explored in the study. This is a challenge in education research, which is rooted in complex environments with many variables that are difficult to control.

For example, Sabel et al. (2017) stated: “Scaffolds, such as enhanced answer keys and reflection questions, can help students and instructors bridge the external and internal factors and support learning” (p. 3). They connected the scaffolds in the study to the three dimensions of metacognition and the eventual transformation of existing ideas into new or revised ideas. Their framework provides a rationale for focusing on how students use two different scaffolds, and not on other factors that may influence a student’s success (self-efficacy, use of active learning, exam format, etc.).

In constructing conceptual frameworks, researchers should address needed areas of study and/or contradictions discovered in literature reviews. By attending to these areas, researchers can strengthen their arguments for the importance of a study. For instance, conceptual frameworks can address how the current study will fill gaps in the research, resolve contradictions in existing literature, or suggest a new area of study. While a literature review describes what is known and not known about the phenomenon, the conceptual framework leverages these gaps in describing the current study ( Maxwell, 2012 ). In the example of Sabel et al. (2017) , the authors indicated there was a gap in the literature regarding how scaffolds engage students in metacognition to promote learning in large classes. Their study helps fill that gap by describing how scaffolds can support students in the three dimensions of metacognition: intelligibility, plausibility, and wide applicability. In another example, Lane (2016) integrated research from science identity, the ethic of care, the sense of belonging, and an expertise model of student success to form a conceptual framework that addressed the critiques of other frameworks. In a more recent example, Sbeglia et al. (2021) illustrated how a conceptual framework influences the methodological choices and inferences in studies by educational researchers.

Sometimes researchers draw upon the conceptual frameworks of other researchers. When a researcher’s conceptual framework closely aligns with an existing framework, the discussion may be brief. For example, Ghee et al. (2016) referred to portions of SCCT as their conceptual framework to explain the significance of their work on students’ self-efficacy and career interests. Because the authors’ conceptualization of this phenomenon aligned with a previously described framework, they briefly mentioned the conceptual framework and provided additional citations that provided more detail for the readers.

Within both the BER and the broader DBER communities, conceptual frameworks have been used to describe different constructs. For example, some researchers have used the term “conceptual framework” to describe students’ conceptual understandings of a biological phenomenon. This is distinct from a researcher’s conceptual framework of the educational phenomenon under investigation, which may also need to be explicitly described in the article. Other studies have presented a research logic model or flowchart of the research design as a conceptual framework. These constructions can be quite valuable in helping readers understand the data-collection and analysis process. However, a model depicting the study design does not serve the same role as a conceptual framework. Researchers need to avoid conflating these constructs by differentiating the researchers’ conceptual framework that guides the study from the research design, when applicable.

Explicitly describing conceptual frameworks is essential in depicting the focus of the study. We have found that being explicit in a conceptual framework means using accepted terminology, referencing prior work, and clearly noting connections between terms. This description can also highlight gaps in the literature or suggest potential contributions to the field of study. A well-elucidated conceptual framework can suggest additional studies that may be warranted. This can also spur other researchers to consider how they would approach the examination of a phenomenon and could result in a revised conceptual framework.

It can be challenging to create conceptual frameworks, but they are important. Below are two resources that could be helpful in constructing and presenting conceptual frameworks in educational research:

• Maxwell, J. A. (2012). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage. Chapter 3 in this book describes how to construct conceptual frameworks.
• Ravitch, S. M., & Riggan, M. (2016). Reason & rigor: How conceptual frameworks guide research . Los Angeles, CA: Sage. This book explains how conceptual frameworks guide the research questions, data collection, data analyses, and interpretation of results.

CONCLUDING THOUGHTS

Literature reviews, theoretical frameworks, and conceptual frameworks are all important in DBER and BER. Robust literature reviews reinforce the importance of a study. Theoretical frameworks connect the study to the base of knowledge in educational theory and specify the researcher’s assumptions. Conceptual frameworks allow researchers to explicitly describe their conceptualization of the relationships among the components of the phenomenon under study. Table 1 provides a general overview of these components in order to assist biology education researchers in thinking about these elements.

It is important to emphasize that these different elements are intertwined. When these elements are aligned and complement one another, the study is coherent, and the study findings contribute to knowledge in the field. When literature reviews, theoretical frameworks, and conceptual frameworks are disconnected from one another, the study suffers. The point of the study is lost, suggested findings are unsupported, or important conclusions are invisible to the researcher. In addition, this misalignment may be costly in terms of time and money.

Conducting a literature review, selecting a theoretical framework, and building a conceptual framework are some of the most difficult elements of a research study. It takes time to understand the relevant research, identify a theoretical framework that provides important insights into the study, and formulate a conceptual framework that organizes the finding. In the research process, there is often a constant back and forth among these elements as the study evolves. With an ongoing refinement of the review of literature, clarification of the theoretical framework, and articulation of a conceptual framework, a sound study can emerge that makes a contribution to the field. This is the goal of BER and education research.

Supplementary Material

• Allee, V. (2000). Knowledge networks and communities of learning . OD Practitioner , 32 ( 4 ), 4–13. [ Google Scholar ]
• Allen, M. (2017). The Sage encyclopedia of communication research methods (Vols. 1–4 ). Los Angeles, CA: Sage. 10.4135/9781483381411 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• American Association for the Advancement of Science. (2011). Vision and change in undergraduate biology education: A call to action . Washington, DC. [ Google Scholar ]
• Anfara, V. A., Mertz, N. T. (2014). Setting the stage . In Anfara, V. A., Mertz, N. T. (eds.), Theoretical frameworks in qualitative research (pp. 1–22). Sage. [ Google Scholar ]
• Barnes, M. E., Brownell, S. E. (2016). Practices and perspectives of college instructors on addressing religious beliefs when teaching evolution . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 15 ( 2 ), ar18. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.15-11-0243 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Boote, D. N., Beile, P. (2005). Scholars before researchers: On the centrality of the dissertation literature review in research preparation . Educational Researcher , 34 ( 6 ), 3–15. 10.3102/0013189x034006003 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Booth, A., Sutton, A., Papaioannou, D. (2016a). Systemic approaches to a successful literature review (2nd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage. [ Google Scholar ]
• Booth, W. C., Colomb, G. G., Williams, J. M., Bizup, J., Fitzgerald, W. T. (2016b). The craft of research (4th ed.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Brownell, S. E., Kloser, M. J. (2015). Toward a conceptual framework for measuring the effectiveness of course-based undergraduate research experiences in undergraduate biology . Studies in Higher Education , 40 ( 3 ), 525–544. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2015.1004234 [ Google Scholar ]
• Connolly, M. R., Lee, Y. G., Savoy, J. N. (2018). The effects of doctoral teaching development on early-career STEM scholars’ college teaching self-efficacy . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 17 ( 1 ), ar14. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.17-02-0039 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cooper, K. M., Blattman, J. N., Hendrix, T., Brownell, S. E. (2019). The impact of broadly relevant novel discoveries on student project ownership in a traditional lab course turned CURE . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 18 ( 4 ), ar57. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.19-06-0113 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Creswell, J. W. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (5th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage. [ Google Scholar ]
• DeHaan, R. L. (2011). Education research in the biological sciences: A nine decade review (Paper commissioned by the NAS/NRC Committee on the Status, Contributions, and Future Directions of Discipline Based Education Research) . Washington, DC: National Academies Press. Retrieved May 20, 2022, from www7.nationalacademies.org/bose/DBER_Mee ting2_commissioned_papers_page.html [ Google Scholar ]
• Ding, L. (2019). Theoretical perspectives of quantitative physics education research . Physical Review Physics Education Research , 15 ( 2 ), 020101. [ Google Scholar ]
• Dirks, C. (2011). The current status and future direction of biology education research . Paper presented at: Second Committee Meeting on the Status, Contributions, and Future Directions of Discipline-Based Education Research, 18–19 October (Washington, DC). Retrieved May 20, 2022, from http://sites.nationalacademies.org/DBASSE/BOSE/DBASSE_071087 [ Google Scholar ]
• Duran, R. P., Eisenhart, M. A., Erickson, F. D., Grant, C. A., Green, J. L., Hedges, L. V., Schneider, B. L. (2006). Standards for reporting on empirical social science research in AERA publications: American Educational Research Association . Educational Researcher , 35 ( 6 ), 33–40. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ebert-May, D., Derting, T. L., Henkel, T. P., Middlemis Maher, J., Momsen, J. L., Arnold, B., Passmore, H. A. (2015). Breaking the cycle: Future faculty begin teaching with learner-centered strategies after professional development . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 14 ( 2 ), ar22. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.14-12-0222 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Galvan, J. L., Galvan, M. C. (2017). Writing literature reviews: A guide for students of the social and behavioral sciences (7th ed.). New York, NY: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315229386 [ Google Scholar ]
• Gehrke, S., Kezar, A. (2017). The roles of STEM faculty communities of practice in institutional and departmental reform in higher education . American Educational Research Journal , 54 ( 5 ), 803–833. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831217706736 [ Google Scholar ]
• Ghee, M., Keels, M., Collins, D., Neal-Spence, C., Baker, E. (2016). Fine-tuning summer research programs to promote underrepresented students’ persistence in the STEM pathway . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 15 ( 3 ), ar28. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.16-01-0046 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Institute of Education Sciences & National Science Foundation. (2013). Common guidelines for education research and development . Retrieved May 20, 2022, from www.nsf.gov/pubs/2013/nsf13126/nsf13126.pdf
• Jensen, J. L., Lawson, A. (2011). Effects of collaborative group composition and inquiry instruction on reasoning gains and achievement in undergraduate biology . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 10 ( 1 ), 64–73. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.19-05-0098 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kolpikova, E. P., Chen, D. C., Doherty, J. H. (2019). Does the format of preclass reading quizzes matter? An evaluation of traditional and gamified, adaptive preclass reading quizzes . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 18 ( 4 ), ar52. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.19-05-0098 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Labov, J. B., Reid, A. H., Yamamoto, K. R. (2010). Integrated biology and undergraduate science education: A new biology education for the twenty-first century? CBE—Life Sciences Education , 9 ( 1 ), 10–16. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.09-12-0092 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lane, T. B. (2016). Beyond academic and social integration: Understanding the impact of a STEM enrichment program on the retention and degree attainment of underrepresented students . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 15 ( 3 ), ar39. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.16-01-0070 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lave, J. (1988). Cognition in practice: Mind, mathematics and culture in everyday life . New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lo, S. M., Gardner, G. E., Reid, J., Napoleon-Fanis, V., Carroll, P., Smith, E., Sato, B. K. (2019). Prevailing questions and methodologies in biology education research: A longitudinal analysis of research in CBE — Life Sciences Education and at the Society for the Advancement of Biology Education Research . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 18 ( 1 ), ar9. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.18-08-0164 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lysaght, Z. (2011). Epistemological and paradigmatic ecumenism in “Pasteur’s quadrant:” Tales from doctoral research . In Official Conference Proceedings of the Third Asian Conference on Education in Osaka, Japan . Retrieved May 20, 2022, from http://iafor.org/ace2011_offprint/ACE2011_offprint_0254.pdf
• Maxwell, J. A. (2012). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage. [ Google Scholar ]
• Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., Saldaña, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis (3rd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage. [ Google Scholar ]
• Nehm, R. (2019). Biology education research: Building integrative frameworks for teaching and learning about living systems . Disciplinary and Interdisciplinary Science Education Research , 1 , ar15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s43031-019-0017-6 [ Google Scholar ]
• Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research & evaluation methods: Integrating theory and practice . Los Angeles, CA: Sage. [ Google Scholar ]
• Perry, J., Meir, E., Herron, J. C., Maruca, S., Stal, D. (2008). Evaluating two approaches to helping college students understand evolutionary trees through diagramming tasks . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 7 ( 2 ), 193–201. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.07-01-0007 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W., Gertzog, W. A. (1982). Accommodation of a scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change . Science Education , 66 ( 2 ), 211–227. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ravitch, S. M., Riggan, M. (2016). Reason & rigor: How conceptual frameworks guide research . Los Angeles, CA: Sage. [ Google Scholar ]
• Reeves, T. D., Marbach-Ad, G., Miller, K. R., Ridgway, J., Gardner, G. E., Schussler, E. E., Wischusen, E. W. (2016). A conceptual framework for graduate teaching assistant professional development evaluation and research . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 15 ( 2 ), es2. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.15-10-0225 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Reynolds, J. A., Thaiss, C., Katkin, W., Thompson, R. J. Jr. (2012). Writing-to-learn in undergraduate science education: A community-based, conceptually driven approach . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 11 ( 1 ), 17–25. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.11-08-0064 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rocco, T. S., Plakhotnik, M. S. (2009). Literature reviews, conceptual frameworks, and theoretical frameworks: Terms, functions, and distinctions . Human Resource Development Review , 8 ( 1 ), 120–130. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484309332617 [ Google Scholar ]
• Rodrigo-Peiris, T., Xiang, L., Cassone, V. M. (2018). A low-intensity, hybrid design between a “traditional” and a “course-based” research experience yields positive outcomes for science undergraduate freshmen and shows potential for large-scale application . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 17 ( 4 ), ar53. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.17-11-0248 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sabel, J. L., Dauer, J. T., Forbes, C. T. (2017). Introductory biology students’ use of enhanced answer keys and reflection questions to engage in metacognition and enhance understanding . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 16 ( 3 ), ar40. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.16-10-0298 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sbeglia, G. C., Goodridge, J. A., Gordon, L. H., Nehm, R. H. (2021). Are faculty changing? How reform frameworks, sampling intensities, and instrument measures impact inferences about student-centered teaching practices . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 20 ( 3 ), ar39. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.20-11-0259 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schwandt, T. A. (2000). Three epistemological stances for qualitative inquiry: Interpretivism, hermeneutics, and social constructionism . In Denzin, N. K., Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 189–213). Los Angeles, CA: Sage. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sickel, A. J., Friedrichsen, P. (2013). Examining the evolution education literature with a focus on teachers: Major findings, goals for teacher preparation, and directions for future research . Evolution: Education and Outreach , 6 ( 1 ), 23. https://doi.org/10.1186/1936-6434-6-23 [ Google Scholar ]
• Singer, S. R., Nielsen, N. R., Schweingruber, H. A. (2012). Discipline-based education research: Understanding and improving learning in undergraduate science and engineering . Washington, DC: National Academies Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Todd, A., Romine, W. L., Correa-Menendez, J. (2019). Modeling the transition from a phenotypic to genotypic conceptualization of genetics in a university-level introductory biology context . Research in Science Education , 49 ( 2 ), 569–589. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-017-9626-2 [ Google Scholar ]
• Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning as a social system . Systems Thinker , 9 ( 5 ), 2–3. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ziadie, M. A., Andrews, T. C. (2018). Moving evolution education forward: A systematic analysis of literature to identify gaps in collective knowledge for teaching . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 17 ( 1 ), ar11. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.17-08-0190 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Undergraduate Research Class - Module 3: Literature Review

• How to Search for KU Library Resources

Library Resources

• Engineering Standards
• Patent Research
• Institutional Resources
• How to Find Materials
• Area Libraries
• Literature Review
• Source Quality
• Summarizing Papers
• Research Questions & Hypothesis

What is a Literature Review?

A  literature review  is a comprehensive study and interpretation of literature that addresses a specific topic.

Literature reviews are generally conducted in one of two ways:

1) As a preliminary review before a larger study in order to critically evaluate the current literature and justify why further study and research is required.

2) As a project in itself that provides a comprehensive survey of the works published in a particular discipline or area of research over a specified period of time.  

Why conduct a literature review? They provide you with a handy guide to a particular topic. If you have limited time to conduct research, literature reviews can give you an overview or act as a stepping stone.

More:   different types of literature reviews  on how to conduct a literature review.

Literature Review Links

• PhD on Track: Types of Reviews Narrative & Systematic
• Purdue OWL: Writing a Literature Review

Scribbr - How to Write a Literature Review

How to Develop a Literature Review

How to develop a literature review from Academic Research Foundations: Quantitative by Rolin Moe

What is the Difference Between a Systematic Review and a Meta-analysis?

Dr. Singh discusses the difference between a systematic review and a meta-analysis.

Purpose of a Literature Review

Purpose of a literature review from Academic Research Foundations: Quantitative by Rolin Moe

• << Previous: Area Libraries
• Next: Source Quality >>
• Last Updated: Sep 3, 2024 3:44 PM
• URL: https://libguides.kettering.edu/research

How to Write a Literature Review

• What is a literature review

How is a literature review different from a research paper?

• What should I do before starting my literature review?
• What type of literature review should I write and how should I organize it?
• What should I be aware of while writing the literature review?
• For more information on Literature Reviews
• More Research Help

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

• << Previous: What is a literature review
• Next: What should I do before starting my literature review? >>
• Last Updated: Feb 26, 2021 11:35 AM
• URL: https://midway.libguides.com/LiteratureReview

RESEARCH HELP

• Research Guides
• Databases A-Z
• Journal Search
• Citation Help

LIBRARY SERVICES

• Accessibility
• Interlibrary Loan
• Study Rooms

INSTRUCTION SUPPORT

• Course Reserves
• Library Instruction
• Little Memorial Library
• 512 East Stephens Street
• 859.846.5316
• [email protected]

Stack Exchange Network

Stack Exchange network consists of 183 Q&A communities including Stack Overflow , the largest, most trusted online community for developers to learn, share their knowledge, and build their careers.

Q&A for work

Connect and share knowledge within a single location that is structured and easy to search.

The difference between literature review and background sections of a dissertation

I was assuming these two were the same. What is the difference between them? How does one relate to another? The context here is an MA (Master of Arts) level social science dissertation in UK education system.

Should background talk about relevant research done? If so why does literature review exist? Or should the background chose only a few literature and discuss them throughly?

• literature-review
• social-science

• 1 What did your supervisor say? –  410 gone Commented Jul 29, 2015 at 15:48
• I have not received reply yet. I wonder diverse opinions. –  co co Commented Jul 29, 2015 at 16:01
• I initially thought them to be similar, if not the same. But then I had a feeling literature review is "what everyone has done on this (or similar topic)", while background is "how we pave the way to this work". This means that a dissimilar method doing the same might not appear in the background review. But it should appear in the related work / literature review. However, my feeling is that one should always do a literature review in a scientific paper / dissertation. It just might be called differently, due to different customs of various fields. –  Oleg Lobachev Commented Jul 7, 2018 at 16:52

4 Answers 4

I am working in a technical field where very often "solutions" to certain important / interesting "problems" are investigated. Roughly, the background explains what the reader needs to understand the problem, and the related work explains (and critiques) what others have done to (partially) solve or discuss this problem or related problems.

• This was how it went for me. Background: "Here's the setup for this problem". Lit Review: "Here's pretty much everything anyone has tried to address it." –  Fomite Commented Sep 23, 2015 at 19:39

Context: I'm in a US PhD program and thus my answer may not be fully appropriate for Masters in UK.

In the US, a Masters thesis is required rather than dissertation, which is required only in PhD programs. In Social Sciences, a Masters thesis shows that you understand the relevant research in some depth and that you can also apply this research to some specific problems or questions. In contrast, a PhD dissertation needs to contribute to research in some important way (even if the contribution is narrow or small).

There are no widely accepted rules for what is appropriate for Background or Literature Review chapters, or whether your thesis should include either or both.

What follows are my views, based on reading various theses and dissertations.

A Background chapter is best used to present contextual or prerequisite information that is important or essential to understand the main body of your thesis. Perhaps there were some historical developments that set the stage for your research questions or thesis. Perhaps there was some debate over key terms or scope of your subfield. Perhaps you are bringing together several disciplines, and you need to explain which aspects of each discipline you are including and not including.

A Literature Review chapter builds a conceptual structure that ties together all the key ideas from all the relevant literature. By "conceptual structure" I mean an organized way of linking individual ideas together so that their relative importance and interrelations are clear and obvious to the reader. What are the main ideas? What ideas support these main ideas? What are the contradictory ideas? On what basis to people decide what ideas or positions to support or oppose?

Viewed this way, what becomes clear is that a Literature Review chapter is less about "literature" and instead is mostly about "review".

For what it's worth, in my dissertation I will not have either chapter. Instead, I've decided to have a chapter called "Foundations" to cover both of these needs.

• "a Masters thesis is required rather than dissertation" - in your understanding, does that mean any difference in meaning, or are "thesis" and "dissertation" synonymous, with the single difference that it is a convention to call a doctoral thesis "dissertation"? –  O. R. Mapper Commented Jul 30, 2015 at 7:19
• @O.R.Mapper While I have heard them used interchangeably, I think there is a distinction between the Masters requirement and the PhD requirement, along the lines I described above. Again, this may be different outside the US. –  MrMeritology Commented Jul 30, 2015 at 16:30
• In the UK, common practice seems to be the opposite: One writes an undergraduate dissertation and a PhD thesis . But otherwise I imagine they're pretty similar to the equivalent level in the US. –  georgewatson Commented Apr 12, 2017 at 13:12

I agree that there is no absolute way to write the research background and literature review chapter. however, there is a general rule of research background which is "write from general to specific". Meaning that, write your research topic general then go specific to your topic.

I take one example of finance research topic which is education loan, and it is a quantitative study (has dependent variable (DV) and independent variables(IV)). Let say I would like to study about default payment (DV) and attitude towards loan repayment (IV).

In the background of study, paragraph 1-3 i will discuss in general about education loan including the countries that offers the edu loan, the design of loan scheme etc. in the first three of the paragraphs, i didn't touch on my specific topic which is default and its predictors.

in para 4, i will discuss briefly what is wrong with the edu loan nowadays - default (refers to when someone refuses to pay loan). and briefly discussed among the major factors that may contribute to the default.

in the next 4 paragraphs, i will focus on the major factor of default which is is attitude. i explain in detail the research trend about attitude (e.g. attitudes correlated with ignorance, dissatisfaction and misconception about the consequences of not pay loan), why attitude important. why attitude towards loan repayment becomes my major focus of the study. i will cite a few recent research who said that study between attitude and intention to pay loan still limited.

the last four para, i will discuss about the evidence about default rate in my context of research (e.g. the country that you gonna do the research, e.g. UK), put some statistic, or statement from prime minister or anything else as the evidence that default is really a problem in the UK.

While, in the literature review, I will be more specific about the relationship between attitude and intention to pay loan. read as much as you can and better to put in a literature review and synthesis matrix to summarize the past research.

I see this as relevant question which many junior researches ponder.

Literature review is usually longer and it can be a whole work/article or a part of a thesis. Background section is usually short and the first part of research article.

For literature review you should thoroughly go through all available studies, assess the important findings in them, discuss them and find some relevance for them. Poor reviews usually list the available studies and their findings. You can hypothesize with some findings especially if controversy exists. For example do the methodological differences explain the possible controversy in the findings. You should not make lengthy or intense speculations since you must stick strictly to the literature available. In the end of literature review you can give some open questions and warrant further research if your review have given examples of controversies or examples of lack of information in the literature.

The background section of a journal article should briefly describe what is reported in the literature so far. Usually you should be able to present some kind absence or need of certain information or a controversy which you will address in your research. You could also describe shortly why this lack of information or controversy should be solved. You should not hypothesize in any way or make assumptions in the background section. All that should come in the discussion section. Finally, you should only scratch the surface of the literature and not try establish reasons for different or controversial findings seen in the previous studies.

• Agreed. Your background section can tell us why you are taking up the specific topic you chose -- it will be the bridge between the literature review and the beginning of your actual study. –  aparente001 Commented Jul 29, 2015 at 22:15

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for browse other questions tagged thesis masters literature-review social-science ..

• Featured on Meta
• Join Stack Overflow’s CEO and me for the first Stack IRL Community Event in...
• User activation: Learnings and opportunities

Hot Network Questions

• What's the origin and first meanings of the term "grand piano"?
• Why did mire/bog skis fall out of use?
• How to find the names of strings used in scripting, like the Bounding Box?
• Plotting Functions (Polynomials) with errors / Around values
• Is SQL .bak file compressed without explicitly stating to compress?
• Mark 6:54 - Who knew/recognized Jesus: the disciples or the crowds?
• What are some limitations of this learning method?
• The graph of a continuous function is a topological manifold
• Why Doesn't the cooling system on a rocket engine burn the fuel?
• My team is not responsive to group messages and other group initiatives. What should be the appropriate solution?
• In The Martian, what does Mitch mean when he is talking to Teddy and says that the space program is not bigger than one person?
• Sent money to rent an apartment, landlord delaying refund with excuses. Is this a scam?
• A function to convert numbers from scientific notation to plain decimal
• PCB design references and roadmap
• If a mount provokes opportunity attacks, can its rider be targeted?
• 3D Chip Design using TikZ
• What is all this —?
• How to identify and uninstall packages installed as dependencies during custom backport creation
• Which law(s) bans medical exams without a prescription?
• Nonparametric test for means?
• My one-liner 'delete old files' command finds the right files but will not delete them
• What is the correct pipeline to process redirection logic
• Is it ethical to request partial reimbursement to present something from my previous position?
• Sync Layernotes between Projects

• Customer Reviews
• Extended Essays
• IB Internal Assessment
• Theory of Knowledge
• Literature Review
• Dissertations
• Essay Writing
• Research Writing
• Assignment Help
• Capstone Projects
• College Application
• Online Class

Literature Review vs Research Paper: What’s the Difference?

by  Antony W

June 26, 2024

This is a complete student’s guide to understanding literature review vs research paper.

We’ll teach you what they’re, explain why they’re important, state the difference between the two, and link you to our comprehensive guide on how to write them.

Literature Review Writing Help

Writing a literature review for a thesis, a research paper, or as a standalone assignment takes time. Much of your time will go into research, not to mention you have other assignments to complete. 

If you find writing in college or university overwhelming, get in touch with our literature review writers for hire at 25% discounts and enjoy the flexibility and convenience that comes with professional writing help. We’ll help you do everything, from research and outlining to custom writing and proofreading.

What is a Literature Review?

A literature review document is a secondary source of information that provides an overview of existing knowledge, which you can use to identify gaps or flaws in existing research. In literature review writing, students have to find and read existing publications such as journal articles, analyze the information, and then state their findings.

Credit: Pubrica

You’ll write a literature review to demonstrate your understanding on the topic, show gaps in existing research, and develop an effective methodology and a theoretical framework for your research project.

Your instructor may ask you to write a literature review as a standalone assignment. Even if that’s the case, the rules for writing a review paper don’t change.

In other words, you’ll still focus on evaluating the current research and find gaps around the topic.

Types of Literature Reviews

There are three types of review papers and they’re a follows:

 1. Meta-analysis

In meta-analysis review paper, you combine and compare answers from already published studies on a given subject.

2. Narrative Review

A narrative review paper looks into existing information or research already conducted on a given topic.

3. Systematic Review

You need to do three things if asked to write a systematic review paper.

First, read and understand the question asked. Second, look into research already conducted on the topic. Third, search for the answer to the question from the established research you just read.

What’s a Research Paper?

A research paper is an assignment in which you present your own argument, evaluation, or interpretation of an issue based on independent research.

In a research paper project, you’ll draw some conclusions from what experts have already done, find gaps in their studies, and then draw your own conclusions.

While a research paper is like an academic essay, it tends to be longer and more detailed.

Since they require extended research and attention to details, research papers can take a lot of time to write.

If well researched, your research paper can demonstrate your knowledge about a topic, your ability to engage with multiple sources, and your willingness to contribute original thoughts to an ongoing debate.

Types of Research Papers

 There are two types of research papers and they’re as follows:

 1. Analytical Research Papers

 Similar to analytical essay , and usually in the form of a question, an analytical research paper looks at an issue from a neutral point and gives a clear analysis of the issue.

Your goal is to make the reader understand both sides of the issue in question and leave it to them to decide what side of the analysis to accept.

Unlike an argumentative research paper, an analytical research paper doesn’t include counterarguments. And you can only draw your conclusion based on the information stretched out all through the analysis.

2. Argumentative Research Papers

In an argumentative research paper, you state the subject under study, look into both sides of an issue, pick a stance, and then use solid evidence and objective reasons to defend your position.

In   argumentative writing, your goal isn’t to persuade your audience to take an action. 

Rather, it’s to convince them that your position on the research question is more accurate than the opposing point of views.

Regardless of the type of research paper that you write, you’ll have to follow the standard outline for the assignment to be acceptable for review and marking.

Also, all research paper, regardless of the research question under investigation must include a literature review.

Literature Review vs Research Paper

The table below shows the differences between a literature review (review paper) and a research paper. 

Frequently Asked Questions

1. is there a literature review in a research paper.

A research paper assignment must include a literature review immediately after the introduction chapter.

The chapter is significant because your research work would otherwise be incomplete without knowledge of existing literature. 

2. How Many Literature Review Should Be in Research Paper?

Your research paper  should have only one literature review. Make sure you write the review based on the instructions from your teacher.

Before you start, check the required length, number of sources to summarize, and the format to use. Doing so will help you score top grades for the assignment. 

3. What is the Difference Between Research and Literature?

Whereas literature focuses on gathering, reading, and summarizing information on already established studies, original research involves coming up with new concepts, theories, and ideas that might fill existing gaps in the available literature.

4. How Long is a Literature Review?

How long a literature review should be will depend on several factors, including the level of education, the length of the assignment, the target audience, and the purpose of the review.

For example, a 150-page dissertation can have a literature review of 40 pages on average.

Make sure you talk to your instructor to determine the required length of the assignment.

5. How Does a Literature Review Look Like?

Your literature review shouldn’t be a focus on original research or new information. Rather, it should give a clear overview of the already existing work on the selected topic.

The information to review can come from various sources, including scholarly journal articles , government reports, credible websites, and academic-based books. 

About the author 

Antony W is a professional writer and coach at Help for Assessment. He spends countless hours every day researching and writing great content filled with expert advice on how to write engaging essays, research papers, and assignments.

Literature Searching

Literature Searching vs. Literature Review

You may hear about conducting a literature search and literature review inter-changeably. In general, a literature search is the process of seeking out and identifying the existing literature related to a topic or question of interest, while a literature review is the organized synthesis of the information found in the existing literature.

In research, a literature search is typically the first step of a literature review. The search identifies relevant existing studies and articles, and the review is the end result of analyzing, synthesizing, and organizing the information found in the search.

When writing a research paper, 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
• Show how your research addresses a knowledge gap or contributes to a debate
• Evaluate the current state of research and demonstrate your knowledge of the scholarly debates around your topic. 

References/Additional Resources

  Baker, J. D. (2016). T he Purpose, Process, and Methods of Writing a Literature Review . AORN Journal, 103(3), 265–269.

  Patrick, L. J., & Munro, S. (2004). The Literature Review: Demystifying the Literature Search. The Diabetes Educator, 30(1), 30–38. 

• << Previous: Home
• Next: Major Steps in a Literature Search >>

Frequently asked questions

What is the difference between a literature review and a theoretical framework.

A literature review and a theoretical framework are not the same thing and cannot be used interchangeably. While a theoretical framework describes the theoretical underpinnings of your work, a literature review critically evaluates existing research relating to your topic. You’ll likely need both in your dissertation .

Frequently asked questions: Dissertation

Dissertation word counts vary widely across different fields, institutions, and levels of education:

• An undergraduate dissertation is typically 8,000–15,000 words
• A master’s dissertation is typically 12,000–50,000 words
• A PhD thesis is typically book-length: 70,000–100,000 words

However, none of these are strict guidelines – your word count may be lower or higher than the numbers stated here. Always check the guidelines provided by your university to determine how long your own dissertation should be.

A dissertation prospectus or proposal describes what or who you plan to research for your dissertation. It delves into why, when, where, and how you will do your research, as well as helps you choose a type of research to pursue. You should also determine whether you plan to pursue qualitative or quantitative methods and what your research design will look like.

It should outline all of the decisions you have taken about your project, from your dissertation topic to your hypotheses and research objectives , ready to be approved by your supervisor or committee.

Note that some departments require a defense component, where you present your prospectus to your committee orally.

A thesis is typically written by students finishing up a bachelor’s or Master’s degree. Some educational institutions, particularly in the liberal arts, have mandatory theses, but they are often not mandatory to graduate from bachelor’s degrees. It is more common for a thesis to be a graduation requirement from a Master’s degree.

Even if not mandatory, you may want to consider writing a thesis if you:

• Plan to attend graduate school soon
• Have a particular topic you’d like to study more in-depth
• Are considering a career in research
• Would like a capstone experience to tie up your academic experience

The conclusion of your thesis or dissertation should include the following:

• A restatement of your research question
• A summary of your key arguments and/or results
• A short discussion of the implications of your research

The conclusion of your thesis or dissertation shouldn’t take up more than 5–7% of your overall word count.

For a stronger dissertation conclusion , avoid including:

• Important evidence or analysis that wasn’t mentioned in the discussion section and results section
• Generic concluding phrases (e.g. “In conclusion …”)
• Weak statements that undermine your argument (e.g., “There are good points on both sides of this issue.”)

Your conclusion should leave the reader with a strong, decisive impression of your work.

While it may be tempting to present new arguments or evidence in your thesis or disseration conclusion , especially if you have a particularly striking argument you’d like to finish your analysis with, you shouldn’t. Theses and dissertations follow a more formal structure than this.

All your findings and arguments should be presented in the body of the text (more specifically in the discussion section and results section .) The conclusion is meant to summarize and reflect on the evidence and arguments you have already presented, not introduce new ones.

A theoretical framework can sometimes be integrated into a  literature review chapter , but it can also be included as its own chapter or section in your dissertation . As a rule of thumb, if your research involves dealing with a lot of complex theories, it’s a good idea to include a separate theoretical framework chapter.

While a theoretical framework describes the theoretical underpinnings of your work based on existing research, a conceptual framework allows you to draw your own conclusions, mapping out the variables you may use in your study and the interplay between them.

A thesis or dissertation outline is one of the most critical first steps in your writing process. It helps you to lay out and organize your ideas and can provide you with a roadmap for deciding what kind of research you’d like to undertake.

Generally, an outline contains information on the different sections included in your thesis or dissertation , such as:

• Your anticipated title
• Your abstract
• Your chapters (sometimes subdivided into further topics like literature review , research methods , avenues for future research, etc.)

When you mention different chapters within your text, it’s considered best to use Roman numerals for most citation styles. However, the most important thing here is to remain consistent whenever using numbers in your dissertation .

In most styles, the title page is used purely to provide information and doesn’t include any images. Ask your supervisor if you are allowed to include an image on the title page before doing so. If you do decide to include one, make sure to check whether you need permission from the creator of the image.

Include a note directly beneath the image acknowledging where it comes from, beginning with the word “ Note .” (italicized and followed by a period). Include a citation and copyright attribution . Don’t title, number, or label the image as a figure , since it doesn’t appear in your main text.

Definitional terms often fall into the category of common knowledge , meaning that they don’t necessarily have to be cited. This guidance can apply to your thesis or dissertation glossary as well.

However, if you’d prefer to cite your sources , you can follow guidance for citing dictionary entries in MLA or APA style for your glossary.

A glossary is a collection of words pertaining to a specific topic. In your thesis or dissertation, it’s a list of all terms you used that may not immediately be obvious to your reader. In contrast, an index is a list of the contents of your work organized by page number.

The title page of your thesis or dissertation goes first, before all other content or lists that you may choose to include.

The title page of your thesis or dissertation should include your name, department, institution, degree program, and submission date.

Glossaries are not mandatory, but if you use a lot of technical or field-specific terms, it may improve readability to add one to your thesis or dissertation. Your educational institution may also require them, so be sure to check their specific guidelines.

A glossary or “glossary of terms” is a collection of words pertaining to a specific topic. In your thesis or dissertation, it’s a list of all terms you used that may not immediately be obvious to your reader. Your glossary only needs to include terms that your reader may not be familiar with, and is intended to enhance their understanding of your work.

A glossary is a collection of words pertaining to a specific topic. In your thesis or dissertation, it’s a list of all terms you used that may not immediately be obvious to your reader. In contrast, dictionaries are more general collections of words.

An abbreviation is a shortened version of an existing word, such as Dr. for Doctor. In contrast, an acronym uses the first letter of each word to create a wholly new word, such as UNESCO (an acronym for the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization).

As a rule of thumb, write the explanation in full the first time you use an acronym or abbreviation. You can then proceed with the shortened version. However, if the abbreviation is very common (like PC, USA, or DNA), then you can use the abbreviated version from the get-go.

Be sure to add each abbreviation in your list of abbreviations !

If you only used a few abbreviations in your thesis or dissertation , you don’t necessarily need to include a list of abbreviations .

If your abbreviations are numerous, or if you think they won’t be known to your audience, it’s never a bad idea to add one. They can also improve readability, minimizing confusion about abbreviations unfamiliar to your reader.

A list of abbreviations is a list of all the abbreviations that you used in your thesis or dissertation. It should appear at the beginning of your document, with items in alphabetical order, just after your table of contents .

Your list of tables and figures should go directly after your table of contents in your thesis or dissertation.

Lists of figures and tables are often not required, and aren’t particularly common. They specifically aren’t required for APA-Style, though you should be careful to follow their other guidelines for figures and tables .

If you have many figures and tables in your thesis or dissertation, include one may help you stay organized. Your educational institution may require them, so be sure to check their guidelines.

A list of figures and tables compiles all of the figures and tables that you used in your thesis or dissertation and displays them with the page number where they can be found.

The table of contents in a thesis or dissertation always goes between your abstract and your introduction .

You may acknowledge God in your dissertation acknowledgements , but be sure to follow academic convention by also thanking the members of academia, as well as family, colleagues, and friends who helped you.

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 .  

In a thesis or dissertation, the discussion is an in-depth exploration of the results, going into detail about the meaning of your findings and citing relevant sources to put them in context.

The conclusion is more shorter and more general: it concisely answers your main research question and makes recommendations based on your overall findings.

In the discussion , you explore the meaning and relevance of your research results , explaining how they fit with existing research and theory. Discuss:

• Your  interpretations : what do the results tell us?
• The  implications : why do the results matter?
• The  limitation s : what can’t the results tell us?

The results chapter or section simply and objectively reports what you found, without speculating on why you found these results. The discussion interprets the meaning of the results, puts them in context, and explains why they matter.

In qualitative research , results and discussion are sometimes combined. But in quantitative research , it’s considered important to separate the objective results from your interpretation of them.

Results are usually written in the past tense , because they are describing the outcome of completed actions.

The results chapter of a thesis or dissertation presents your research results concisely and objectively.

In quantitative research , for each question or hypothesis , state:

• The type of analysis used
• Relevant results in the form of descriptive and inferential statistics
• Whether or not the alternative hypothesis was supported

In qualitative research , for each question or theme, describe:

• Recurring patterns
• Significant or representative individual responses
• Relevant quotations from the data

Don’t interpret or speculate in the results chapter.

To automatically insert a table of contents in Microsoft Word, follow these steps:

• Apply heading styles throughout the document.
• In the references section in the ribbon, locate the Table of Contents group.
• Click the arrow next to the Table of Contents icon and select Custom Table of Contents.
• Select which levels of headings you would like to include in the table of contents.

Make sure to update your table of contents if you move text or change headings. To update, simply right click and select Update Field.

All level 1 and 2 headings should be included in your table of contents . That means the titles of your chapters and the main sections within them.

The contents should also include all appendices and the lists of tables and figures, if applicable, as well as your reference list .

Do not include the acknowledgements or abstract in the table of contents.

The abstract appears on its own page in the thesis or dissertation , after the title page and acknowledgements but before the table of contents .

An abstract for a thesis or dissertation is usually around 200–300 words. There’s often a strict word limit, so make sure to check your university’s requirements.

In a thesis or dissertation, the acknowledgements should usually be no longer than one page. There is no minimum length.

The acknowledgements are generally included at the very beginning of your thesis , directly after the title page and before the abstract .

Yes, it’s important to thank your supervisor(s) in the acknowledgements section of your thesis or dissertation .

Even if you feel your supervisor did not contribute greatly to the final product, you must acknowledge them, if only for a very brief thank you. If you do not include your supervisor, it may be seen as a snub.

In the acknowledgements of your thesis or dissertation, you should first thank those who helped you academically or professionally, such as your supervisor, funders, and other academics.

Then you can include personal thanks to friends, family members, or anyone else who supported you during the process.

Ask our team

Want to contact us directly? No problem.  We  are always here for you.

• Email [email protected]
• Start live chat
• Call +1 (510) 822-8066
• WhatsApp +31 20 261 6040

Our team helps students graduate by offering:

• A world-class citation generator
• Plagiarism Checker software powered by Turnitin
• Innovative Citation Checker software
• Professional proofreading services
• Over 300 helpful articles about academic writing, citing sources, plagiarism, and more

Scribbr specializes in editing study-related documents . We proofread:

• PhD dissertations
• Research proposals
• Personal statements
• Admission essays
• Motivation letters
• Reflection papers
• Journal articles
• Capstone projects

Scribbr’s Plagiarism Checker is powered by elements of Turnitin’s Similarity Checker , namely the plagiarism detection software and the Internet Archive and Premium Scholarly Publications content databases .

The add-on AI detector is powered by Scribbr’s proprietary software.

The Scribbr Citation Generator is developed using the open-source Citation Style Language (CSL) project and Frank Bennett’s citeproc-js . It’s the same technology used by dozens of other popular citation tools, including Mendeley and Zotero.

You can find all the citation styles and locales used in the Scribbr Citation Generator in our publicly accessible repository on Github .

• Open access
• Published: 17 September 2024

The S in STEM: gender differences in science anxiety and its relations with science test performance-related variables

• Dmitri Rozgonjuk   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-1612-2040 1 ,
• Karin Täht 1 , 2 ,
• Regina Soobard 3 ,
• Moonika Teppo 3 &
• Miia Rannikmäe 3  

International Journal of STEM Education volume  11 , Article number:  45 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

Metrics details

STEM education has experienced significant growth due to its pivotal role in innovation and economic development. While cognitive factors like prior knowledge are known predictors of STEM success, non-cognitive factors, including attitudes and demographics, also play vital roles. However, there is a notable scarcity of research focusing on the "S" in STEM—science—compared to extensive studies in fields like mathematics. This study aims to address this gap by exploring gender differences in science test performance and related attitudes, providing insights into this under-researched aspect of STEM education.

The effective sample comprised 1839 Estonian 12th-grade students who took a computer-assisted science test. The test consisted of tasks combining chemistry, physics, biology, and geography, and a post-test survey was also administered. Across the total sample, the results showed that test performance positively correlated with test-taking duration, effort, and test importance. Test performance was negatively correlated with perceived test difficulty. Interestingly, while general science anxiety was not associated with test performance, subject-specific anxiety, especially chemistry anxiety had a negative association with test performance. While there were no gender differences in test performance, female students scored consistently higher on all science anxiety measures, compared to male students. Furthermore, female students assessed the science test to be more difficult, and they also took more time to complete the test. The correlations in gender subsamples mirrored those observed in the total sample.

Conclusions

The association between science test performance and test-related variables is nuanced: students might not necessarily have a “general” STEM anxiety but it may be associated with a specific subject. Moreover, the findings imply that although there are no gender differences in test performance, girls have a greater anxiety when it comes to natural sciences subjects. These findings indicate the need for investigating the origin of such anxieties, which do not seem to stem from aptitude.

Introduction

Over the past few decades, the emphasis on Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) education has increased substantially (Kayan-Fadlelmula et al., 2022 ; Li et al., 2020 ). This surge in emphasis is not without reason: STEM fields stand at the forefront of innovation, playing a pivotal role in driving economic growth and addressing global challenges (Widya et al., 2019 ). STEM encompasses an array of disciplines, each intricate in its own way. In students’ STEM performance at school, both cognitive and non-cognitive factors contribute. Cognitive factors, including prior knowledge, spatial skills, abstract thinking, and logical reasoning have been identified as significant predictors of success in STEM fields (Andersen, 2014 ; Berkowitz & Stern, 2018 ). Among non-cognitive factors, attitudes towards STEM subjects and fields have also been shown to play a significant role (Potvin & Hasni, 2014 ; Potvin et al., 2020 ). Additionally, demographic factors, such as socio-economic status (Rozgonjuk et al., 2023 ), and individual characteristics, such as gender (Wang et al., 2023 ), can significantly influence both academic performance and development of STEM attitudes.

Although research exists on the interplay between academic achievement and attitudes in STEM—and gender differences in the domain—specific aspects, such as the association between science test performance and motivational variables like anxiety, still warrant further investigation. Furthermore, science can be decomposed into more specific subjects, including physics, chemistry, biology, and geography. In the present work, we aim to investigate the association between science achievement, test-related attitudes as well as general and subject-specific science anxiety, and gender differences in these links.

Literature review

Historically, gender differences in STEM fields, particularly in science, have been a focal point of educational and psychological research (Li et al., 2020 ). The so-called gender-equality paradox refers to a phenomenon observed in many societies where, despite significant efforts to achieve gender equality across various fields, a notable discrepancy persists in the representation of men and women in certain professions, particularly those related to STEM (Stoet & Geary, 2018 ; Tandrayen-Ragoobur & Gokulsing, 2022 ). Not only do gender disparities exist in participation and representation in these fields, but studies have also indicated differences in performance, attitudes, and experiences (Voyer & Voyer, 2014 ). In Estonia, the proportion of female STEM graduates is generally higher than in other OECD countries; however, the pay gap between men and women remains one of the largest among the surveyed countries (OECD, 2024 ). Furthermore, some evidence suggests an association between a larger pay gap and a higher proportion of women in STEM-related fields, possibly reflecting a higher pay gap in STEM jobs (Treialt, 2021 ). Of relevance, the average age of Estonian teachers (including in science) is one of the highest among OECD countries (OECD, 2019b , p. 84), and it is a major factor in teaching motivation (Täht et al., 2023 ).

Several factors have been proposed to contribute to the development of the gender gap in STEM, including social and cultural influences and stereotypes (Cheryan et al., 2017 ; Master et al., 2021 ; Verdugo-Castro et al., 2022 ), differences in career interests and priorities (So et al., 2022 ), socio-economic status (Early et al., 2020 ; Rozgonjuk et al., 2023 ), differences in personality traits (Anni et al., 2023 ; Hofmann et al., 2023 ; McKinney et al., 2021 ), and societal expectations regarding gender roles (Hägglund & Leuze, 2021 ; Schmitt et al., 2008 ).

Academic self-efficacy and anxiety are two psychological concepts that are often intertwined when it comes to shaping the attitudes towards academic subjects (Burns et al., 2021 ; McKinney et al., 2021 ; Rozgonjuk et al., 2020 ). Self-efficacy is the belief in one’s own abilities (Bandura, 1997 ), whereas academic anxiety refers to feelings of fear, apprehension, or worry experienced in response to academic tasks, assessments, or performance expectations (Tobias & Weissbrod, 1980 ). Research has shown that self-efficacy correlates with better academic outcomes in general (Warren et al., 2020 ), as well as more specifically in science (Burns et al., 2021 ) and mathematics (Özcan & Eren Gümüş, 2019 ). Conversely, poorer academic performance in respective domains has been shown to be accompanied by higher anxiety in mathematics (Caviola et al., 2022 ; Guzmán et al., 2023 ; Namkung et al., 2019 ) and in science (Megreya et al., 2021 ).

According to the meta-analysis by Reilly et al. ( 2015 ), male students tend to have a higher achievement in both mathematics and science than female students in the U.S. On the other hand, recent research, relying on international studies, shows a more mixed picture: in general, while boys outperform girls in mathematics, girls outperformed boys in science in most of the participating OECD countries in the PISA 2018 survey (OECD, 2019a , p. 142). These findings suggest that gender disparities in STEM achievement are context-dependent, highlighting the importance of considering cultural, educational, and socio-economic factors when addressing gender gaps in education.

In studies that do not find gender differences in academic outcomes, girls tend to score lower on mathematics self-efficacy (Zander et al., 2020 ) and higher on mathematics anxiety measures (Vos et al., 2023 ). In another study, Megreya et al. ( 2021 ) found that female students had higher science anxiety. Relatedly, Cotner et al. ( 2020 ) found that female Norwegian biology students reported higher testing anxiety than male biology students; interestingly, anxiety did not predict the achievement of male students. Moreover, in a recent systematic-narrative literature review, Balducci ( 2023 ) has also investigated the association between the gender gap in mathematics and science and country-level gender equality. Interestingly, while mathematics gender gap was not linked to country-level gender equality, larger gender differences in mathematics attitudes and anxiety are reported in more gender-equal countries. When it comes to science, Balducci ( 2023 ) found that girls display a lower science self-concept than boys in the vast majority of cases—even though, as mentioned above, boys did not necessarily outperform girls in terms of ability.

These differences are not without consequences. For instance, Sakellariou and Fang ( 2021 ) argue that early development of self-efficacy in mathematics and science is predictive of propensity to study STEM subjects. The authors also showed that reducing the STEM gender gap is effective in girls with above-average self-efficacy. It could be argued, therefore, that by reducing STEM-related anxiety (which would, conversely, likely result in improving STEM self-efficacy), more girls could consider a STEM career path. Reducing anxiety and improving self-efficacy do not solely depend on one’s performance but can also be achieved through targeted interventions addressing anxiety sources, teaching methods, and learning-related activities (Zakariya, 2022 ).

Conceptual framework

In this study, we contextualize gender differences in science, extrapolated to STEM education in general within the framework of Social Cognitive Theory (SCT; Bussey & Bandura, 1999 ). SCT posits that individual beliefs, environmental influences, and behaviors dynamically interact to shape academic outcomes. Building upon this theory, we propose that gender disparities in STEM fields result from a complex interplay of personal factors (such as self-efficacy and anxiety), socio-cultural influences (including stereotypes and societal expectations), and environmental factors (such as educational experiences and opportunities). Transitioning to our specific focus, we delve into investigating the variance in personal factors, notably science anxiety. This choice is informed by our understanding that individual attitudes and emotions can significantly impact academic performance and career choices within STEM disciplines.

In addition, although initially derived from the mathematics domain, the insights from Baloglu and Kocak ( 2006 ) can be plausibly extended to science. They suggest that achievement-related attitudes and motivational factors—in the context of the present study, science anxiety—can be influenced by situational, dispositional, and environmental factors. Situational elements pertain directly to the domain in question (i.e., testing in the present study). In contrast, dispositional and environmental factors revolve around the inclination to cultivate stable attitudes and behaviors towards subjects and the external contexts associated with the domain, respectively. Hence, science anxiety could be affected by previous testing experiences (situational), general tendencies to experience anxiety (dispositional), and societal expectations and stereotypes regarding science performance (environmental).

The framework by Baloglu and Kocak ( 2006 ) is relevant to our study in linking science anxiety to situational test-related variables to provide empirical evidence on these associations. Investigating other factors (i.e., dispositional and environmental) is not within the scope of the present study. It is important to note that although the science anxiety inventory items refer to anxiety experienced towards science beyond testing situations, we queried about these attitudes after the test was taken. Hence, it is possible that, on one hand, anxiety could impact test performance; on the other hand, test-related variables like test difficulty, test duration, and test appeal could influence self-reported science anxiety, which might, in turn, impact attitudes towards science.

Aims and hypotheses

While science represents a component of STEM, emphasis on examining achievements in science in relation to anxiety, and the gender differences in that link, have garnered less attention than areas like mathematics. The main aim of the present study is to explore the associations between and gender differences in science test performance, test-taking time, science anxiety, and test-related attitudes. It could be argued that students who have lower science anxiety are more motivated to perform well on a test (i.e., they find the test important to them), and are also willing to exert more effort (Glynn et al., 2009 ). This, in turn, could lead to better performance. There is evidence in literature supporting this logic in test-taking research. Lower test anxiety is related to higher motivation and better academic performance, and students with higher test anxiety have an increased potential to engage in academic self-handicapping behavior. In addition, one may argue that higher motivation to perform well can also lead students to spend more time and apply greater diligence to their test-taking. In other words, more time spent on test-taking should correlate with higher motivation, and this could lead to better outcomes. However, based on literature, one may also anticipate that girls report higher science-related anxiety in comparison to boys—despite similar academic outcomes. Given this reasoning, the following hypotheses are posed:

H1: Science anxiety measures are negatively correlated with science test performance. High levels of anxiety, particularly when specific to a subject like science, can hinder a student's ability to access and utilize accumulated knowledge (Mallow, 2006 ). Research has consistently shown that high anxiety levels can interfere with learning and impair test performance (Caviola et al., 2022 ). In addition, the link between academic performance and anxiety is relatively well-established in other STEM domains, like mathematics (Caviola et al., 2022 ; Guzmán et al., 2023 ; Namkung et al., 2019 ), but relatively less researched in the science domain.

H2: Motivational variables (test importance, effort) are positively correlated with test performance. Test-taking motivation and effort are closely connected. Students with higher motivation levels are more likely to exert effort in preparing for and taking the test, in turn leading to improved results (Alhadabi & Karpinski, 2020 ). The significance of motivation is evident in situations where a student possesses the requisite knowledge but may underperform due to a lack of motivation or perceived relevance of the test to their future goals (Dökme et al., 2022 ).

H3: Test-taking duration is positively correlated with test importance and effort, as well as test performance. While one might intuitively assume that faster completion times reflect higher levels of proficiency, empirical evidence suggests that rapid guessing (i.e., shorter test-taking time) correlates negatively with test scores (Rios et al., 2022 ). On the other hand, more time taken to solve assignments is generally linked to better results also in mathematics and science (Silm et al., 2020 ).

H4. There are no gender differences in science test performance but girls score higher on science anxiety measures. This hypothesis is inspired by findings from STEM research, particularly in mathematics, where there are generally no gender differences in academic performance, but girls report higher levels of STEM-related anxiety (Foley et al., 2017 ; Guzmán et al., 2023 ).

H5. The correlation between test performance and anxiety is stronger in girls than in boys . In other words, anxiety plays a larger role in performance in girls. Previously, it has been shown that the link between mathematics anxiety and performance is stronger in girls than in boys (Devine et al., 2012 ; Dowker et al., 2016 ). Additionally, this hypothesis is inspired by the findings in literature that showed that despite having similar academic outcomes in STEM subjects, girls tend to opt for a STEM career less (Schmader, 2023 ; Sevilla & Snodgrass Rangel, 2023 ). The findings could provide an additional explanation to that phenomenon: it could be that STEM is associated with more anxiety for girls than for boys, consequently guiding the former away from a STEM career consideration.

Alongside these hypotheses, we explore the potential differences between general and subject-specific anxiety measures in relation to test performance and additional test-related variables (e.g., perceived test difficulty and appeal). While these analyses are not focal in the present study, we believe they may nevertheless be informative and useful.

The results of the present study supplement the STEM education field, as studies regarding gender differences in the interplay between academic performance-related variables and STEM-related anxiety are scarce. In case the gender gap in science is related to anxiety, and other variables show correlations with performance and/or anxiety, the findings could inform academics and educational professionals about potential points for anxiety interventions, as outlined by Zakariya ( 2022 ).

Methodology

Sample and procedure.

The target sample was 12th-grade students from general education schools and 3rd-year (partly 2nd-year) students from vocational educational institutions who had completed the national curriculum for the 4th level of education in physics, chemistry, biology, and geography. The goal was to include 20% (appx. N = 2500) of the students from the respective general student population (N = 10147). The data were collected in March 2023 from a representative sample of students with the aim of investigating science skills and science-related attitudes.

The survey was conducted in classrooms where each student solved the test and responded to the survey from an assigned computer. In total, the advised time for the procedure was 145 min, though this could be extended if necessary. 120 min were assigned solely for the science test administration, 15 min for the survey, and 10 min for a break between test sub-sections.

The students first took the science ability test. After that, the students filled out a three-part post-test survey. The first part focused on epistemic beliefs in science (not used in the present work), the second part was about science anxiety, and the third part regarded test-related attitudes. Importantly, in the part related to science anxiety, all students could respond to items regarding general science anxiety (please see the “ Measures ” section); subsequently, the students needed to select one subject to assess the related anxiety. Participating in the study was voluntary.

In total, 1907 Estonian 12th-graders took part in the study. After excluding the participants who had missing values, the sample comprised N = 1843 students. Furthermore, students whose test-taking duration deviated more or less than three standard deviations from the average time were removed from the analysis. The effective sample comprised N = 1839 students, 944 (51.3%) were female and 895 (48.7%) were male students. 1438 (78.2%) participants were from a general secondary school, while 401 (21.8%) were vocational secondary school students. 1466 (79.7%) students took the test in Estonian, and 373 (20.3%) students took the test in Russian language. Although the effective sample size was less than the planned N = 2500, the sample was nevertheless representative of the student population of Estonia.

Science ability test The interdisciplinary science ability test consisted of physics, chemistry, biology, and geography assignments. These context-based multi-part tasks focused on science content and principles in daily life and global phenomena. The test was developed in several iterations across 2018 to 2022, based on both expert feedback as well as psychometric analysis; the detailed test development procedure is described in Vaino et al., ( 2024 ).

In total, the test consisted of 37 items which assessed the following facets:

(a)Knowledge comprehension. Students were required to explain natural phenomena, identify cause-and-effect relationships, use scientific symbolism, perform calculations, and explain or construct scientific models;

(b)Inquiry skills. Students demonstrated mastery of various research skills, from formulating research problems, questions, or hypotheses to evaluating the quality of conducted experiments;

(c)Problem-solving. Students were tasked with resolving issues both with scientific content and those with a scientific basis and social relevance, making reasoned decisions;

(d)Communication abilities. Students composed short texts on scientific topics, sought information from various sources, and assessed the reliability of the information obtained.

The responses were assessed based on the solution completion (e.g., 0 =  incorrect , 1 =  partially correct , 2 =  correct ). Confirmatory factor analysis showed an acceptable model fit (Kline, 2015 ) for the unidimensional solution of the test, χ 2 (629) = 2268.29, p < 0.001, RMSEA = 0.036, CFI = 0.908, TLI = 0.903 (Rannikmäe et al. 2023 ). In addition, Cronbach’s α = 0.849 for the total test.

Post-testing survey general and subject-specific science anxiety. The science anxiety part of the procedure regarded the general and subject-specific statements. These items were created by the survey development team which included experts in education and psychology. The general science anxiety questionnaire included the following statements:

Natural sciences lessons frighten me.

In natural science lessons, I worry that everything is too complicated for me.

When solving natural sciences homework, I worry that I do not understand it.

The agreement with these statements was rated on a scale from 1 =  completely disagree to 4 =  completely agree. The scores were summed to form a general science anxiety score. Cronbach’s alpha for this scale was α = 0.86.

In addition, the students could select one of the subjects (options: physics, chemistry, geography, biology) to assess their anxiety related to that subject. The following statements were used:

I often worry that it is difficult for me in [chemistry/physics/geography/biology] lessons.

I get very tense when I have to learn [chemistry/physics/geography/biology] at home (do homeworks).

I get nervous when I am working on solving [chemistry/physics/geography/biology]-related problems.

I feel helpless when I am working on solving [chemistry/physics/geography/biology]-related problems.

I worry that I will get bad grades in [chemistry/physics/geography/biology].

It is important to note that, as mentioned, only one subject could be chosen for evaluation. Hence, this scale was operationalized as “subject-specific” anxiety (as opposed to “general”). As with the general science anxiety inventory, the responses ranged from 1 =  completely disagree to 4 =  completely agree , and the scores of responses were summed. The internal reliability of the scale across the total sample was Cronbach’s α = 0.87.

Post-testing survey science test-related attitudes. The students responded to seven items regarding test-taking motivation (1 =  completely disagree to 5 =  completely agree ), which included statements regarding the importance of the test to the student (3 items; example item: “The test was important for me.”) as well as the effort put into test-taking (4 items; example item: “I put in a lot of effort throughout the test”). Cronbach’s α = 0.70 and α = 0.84 for test importance and effort, respectively. In addition, the students evaluated the difficulty (1 =  very simple to 5 =  very difficult ) and appeal (1 =  very interesting to 5 =  not at all interesting ) of the test with one item; the latter was reverse-coded for better interpretability to 1 =  not at all interesting to 5 =  very interesting ).

The data analysis was conducted in R v4.3.0 software (R Core Team, 2023 ). Descriptive statistics, internal reliability, and Pearson correlation analysis was conducted with psych v2.3.3 (Revelle, 2021 ) and RcmdrMisc v.2.7–2 (Fox, 2022 ). Group differences in gender were analyzed with the independent samples t test from R’s base() package. The lsr v.0.5.2 (Navarro, 2015 ) was used to compute Cohen’s d-s for gender differences effect size estimation. We used common effect size benchmarks: d = 0.01, 0.20, 0.50, 0.80, 1.20, and 2.00 for “very small”, “small”, “medium”, “large”, “very large”, and “huge” effect sizes, respectively (Cohen, 1988 ; Sawilowsky, 2009 ). However, we also want to point out that Kraft (2020) has argued that it may be more justified to interpret d < 0.05, d < 0.20, and d > 0.50 as “small”, “medium”, and “large” effect sizes, respectively, in educational context. To test for differences between Pearson correlation coefficients for science test score and other variables, Fisher's r-to-z transformation was employed, which converts correlations into normally distributed z-scores for comparison (Silver & Dunlap, 1987 ).

In this section, we first present the descriptive statistics and correlation analysis results for the total sample. This is followed by the results on gender differences.

Descriptive statistics and correlations for the total sample

The descriptive statistics and correlations for the total sample are displayed in Table  1 .

Table 1 shows that test performance is moderately and positively linked to test-taking duration: more time spent on solving the test is associated with better performance. Similarly, finding the test to be appealing and important for oneself as well as reporting exerting more effort were linked to better performance. On the other hand, test difficulty had a small significant negative correlation with test performance. When it comes to test-taking duration, students who spent more time on test assignments also rated the importance of the test higher, found the test to be more appealing, and reported putting more effort into solving the assignments. These correlations were medium-to-large in effect sizes.

Looking into anxiety measures, the general science anxiety score did not correlate statistically significantly with other variables. Interestingly, general science anxiety did not correlate with subject-specific anxiety. On the other hand, subject-specific anxiety yields a small negative correlation with test performance, and students who rated the test more difficult also reported higher subject-specific anxiety. The results also show that students who found the test to be more difficult had more anxiety in the physics and chemistry domains.

When it comes to other test performance-related attitudes, the results in Table  1 show that finding the test appealing, in addition to positively correlating with better results and higher test-taking time, had a positive link with test importance and effort, and a negative association with test difficulty.

Gender differences in test performance-related factors and anxiety

Gender differences in science test performance and performance-related attitudes are displayed in Table  2 and depicted in Fig.  1 a, b. The figures display the results for the total sample, as well as for male and female students separately.

a Error bar plots (95% CIs) for gender differences in science test performance, test-taking duration, and test-taking related attitudes. b Error bar plots (95% CIs) for group differences in general and subject-specific science anxiety

The results in Table  2 show that there were no gender differences in science test performance, nor was one group more motivated (i.e., assessing the test importance higher) than the other group to perform well on the test. In addition, girls and boys found the test similarly appealing, and both groups reported similar levels of effort in test performance.

The findings in Table  2 , however, show that girls evaluated the test more difficult than boys. Female students reported higher anxiety levels in all anxiety measures.

How do different factors correlate with test performance across gender, and do these correlations differ? The latter question would allow further investigation if test-related variables or anxiety measures have a stronger link with test performance. To answer these questions, correlation coefficients were compared across the groups. The results are displayed in Table  3 and in Fig.  2 a, b.

a Error bar plots (95% CIs) for correlation differences between genders in science test performance, test-taking duration, and test-taking related attitudes. b Error bar plots (95% CIs) for correlation differences between genders in general and subject-specific science anxiety

The results in Table  3 show that test duration had the strongest (positive) correlation with test performance, i.e., more time spent on taking the test was correlated with better test results. As reported for the total sample in Table  1 , test effort, importance, and appeal also had positive correlations with test performance also in both boys’ and girls’ samples. Test score and difficulty had a negative correlation. There were no gender differences in how strongly test-related variables correlated with test scores, indicating similar strengths in these associations across genders.

We also investigated the differences in correlations between test scores and various anxiety measures. Apart from general science anxiety (GS), geography and biology anxiety, other anxiety variables exhibited a statistically significant, albeit small, negative correlation with test scores in both boys and girls. However, the magnitudes of these correlations were similar, as the differences in correlations were not statistically significant.

To account for other possible effects (school type and test language), we conducted separate analyses on a homogeneous group of secondary school students who took the test in Estonian. The results, displayed in Supplementary Materials 1, showed marginal differences. Therefore, we discuss the total sample results as the main findings.

The main aim of the present study is to explore the associations between science test performance, test-taking time, science anxiety, test-related attitudes, and gender differences. We posed several hypotheses, and conducted additional analyses.

According to the first hypothesis (H1), we expected that the science test scores are negatively associated with science anxiety across the total sample. Previous works have shown that, among STEM subjects, mathematics anxiety generally predicts poorer mathematics achievement (Caviola et al., 2022 ; Guzmán et al., 2023 ; Namkung et al., 2019 ). The results showed that this hypothesis found partial support from the data. General science anxiety did not correlate with test performance; rather, the achievement-relevant anxiety seems to be subject-specific, especially when it comes to chemistry. Although the correlation was small, it nevertheless shows that students who reported higher chemistry-related anxiety also scored lower on a science test that includes elements of other natural sciences. These findings also call for careful consideration of treating science anxiety as a general construct, whereas this anxiety might be subject-specific.

We expected that higher test importance, test-taking effort, time spent on test, and performance would all be positively correlated (H2 and H3). An explanation for such expectations lies in the assumption that students who perceive the science test as important to them, are more likely to put more effort into taking the test. Behaviorally, this could manifest in more time spent on solving the assignments, for example, making sure that the task is understood and double-checking the responses. In turn, this should result in higher test scores. Both hypotheses were supported by the data. In fact, test-taking time had the highest correlation with test performance among all the tested variables, yielding a medium-to-high effect. These results are also in line with literature that has previously demonstrated that more time taken for solving tasks tends to result in better performance (Silm et al., 2020 ). All other correlations were also positive, in the small-to-medium effect size range. Interestingly, girls took more time to solve the tasks than boys, but there were no differences in test importance and effort. That said, the link between test score and test-taking duration did not differ across genders.

Finally, we expected not to see gender differences in test performance; however, girls were expected to score higher on science anxiety measures (H4). In addition, we expected that the correlation between science test performance and anxiety measures is stronger in girls than in boys (H5). The former hypothesis, too, found support from data. Although general science anxiety did not correlate with other measures, girls nevertheless scored higher, albeit with a small effect size. However, in subject-specific anxiety measures, the effect sizes of gender differences were medium-to-large. On the other hand, the latter hypothesis (H5) did not find support from the data, suggesting that the correlations between anxiety and performance do not differ statistically significantly between boys and girls. These results are interesting, as they seem to indicate that although girls report more anxiety, it does not seem to affect their results (or vice versa) more than those of boys. The findings also contradict those previously found in the mathematics domain (Devine et al., 2012 ; Dowker et al., 2016 ). Indeed, one could potentially hypothesize that the gender gap in STEM careers (Schmader, 2023 ; Sevilla & Snodgrass Rangel, 2023 )—at least based on science—might not originate from ability or from anxiety influencing performance, but rather from the anxiety itself.

There could be several explanations for these findings, ranging from societal expectations (e.g., stereotypes) to individual characteristics. Given that societal stereotypes affect not only how girls’ skills in STEM are perceived, but also how this perception negatively impacts their interest in these subjects (Master & Meltzoff, 2020 ; Master et al., 2021 ; Shapiro & Williams, 2012 ), as well as how women may be perceived as lacking the qualities as scientists due to stereotypes (Carli et al., 2016 ), it might not be surprising that female students may feel the pressure to perform in STEM subjects while also having a lower STEM self-concept (Leibham et al., 2013 ). More recently, the role of social media has also been outlined as potentially influencing math and science attitudes (Daniels & Robnett, 2021 ).

Personality research has demonstrated that women, on average, score higher on the neuroticism personality trait, which reflects experiencing more negative affect, including anxious tendencies (Hofmann et al., 2023 ; Mac Giolla & Kajonius, 2018 ). Relatedly, the neuroticism personality trait is not correlated with cognitive ability (Rozgonjuk et al., 2021a , 2021b ). Hence, it may be that female students report more science anxiety than male students, despite their abilities not differing significantly. It has also been hypothesized that such anxious tendencies (at least in the STEM context) may drive a self-deprecating cycle in female students, where anxiety carries over to other testing situations (Pelch, 2018 ). This anxiety possibly affects performance and skews attitudes towards the study domain negatively. In this regard, it may be interesting to further examine the dynamics of experiencing anxiety and worrying tendencies in adolescents, and if there are general changes in anxious tendencies also in academic settings over time, similarly to more general personality characteristics (Mõttus & Rozgonjuk, 2021 ).

With regard to additional exploratory analyses, we generally found that the correlations between test performance and other variables did not statistically significantly differ between boys and girls, meaning that the correlations found in the total sample should be applicable to both groups. The students who scored higher on the test also reported more positive feelings towards the test, i.e., found the test more appealing, and, conversely, found the test less difficult than the students who had a poorer test score. This is in line with previous findings, demonstrating that higher test-taking motivation, effort, and liking the test are associated with better achievement (Alhadabi & Karpinski, 2020 ; Pekrun et al., 2014 ; Silm et al., 2013 ; Živković et al., 2023 ), whereas the perceived difficulty of the test is linked to poorer results (Mazana et al., 2018 ).

Interestingly, those who found the test appealing, also took more time for solving the tasks. Although test difficulty and test appeal had a negative correlation, test difficulty did not predict test-taking time. These results suggest that students who took more time for solving the assignments did not seem to do so because they found the test very challenging; rather, also supported by the findings reported above, the findings indicate that the students were motivated to give their best. The findings may further underscore the importance of positive affective factors in successful test performance.

Additional interesting insights regard anxiety’s negative correlation with test appeal and positive link with test difficulty. These links were subject-specific and the effects were rather small but they do seem to suggest that, in some cases, there might be an interplay between the perception of science assignments and anxiety. Granted that the present study did not investigate causal associations, one could further hypothesize that perceived test difficulty (or appeal) could be affected by the anxiety one has towards a science subject. Attitudes like finding the subject difficult has been associated with anxiety in mathematics before (Rozgonjuk et al., 2020 ). Building positive attitudes towards science and testing can help boost science self-efficacy which, in turn, is associated with better results in science (Lau & Ho, 2022 ).

Science as a subject differs from mathematics, as it encompasses more domains. The results of our study showed, though, that when it comes to science attitudes (namely, anxiety), it may also be anchored to a specific subject, and not only rather than a general attitude towards science.

Studies tend to report that boys outperform girls in mathematics (Reilly et al., 2015 ; Rozgonjuk et al., 2023 ), but there is also evidence that girls outperform boys in science (OECD, 2019a ). Regardless, female students tend to have poorer self-concept regarding these subjects, and could manifest in anxiety towards the subject (Balducci, 2023 ; Megreya et al., 2021 ). Our work is in line with the works regarding attitudes—girls do report higher science anxiety; on the other hand, our work also shows that this anxiety is not due to poorer achievement. Based on this, the findings suggest that STEM research might gain additional insights by also analyzing the different domains separately.

The main contribution of the present study was to provide empirical evidence for the ‘S’ in STEM research: science. Although science is an essential field in contemporary education and career opportunities, many STEM-focused papers seem to focus either on the ‘M’ in STEM—mathematics—or on STEM in general, including investigating gender differences. Our work revealed that there are not only interesting links and differences in the science domain—but science itself might be too general of a construct. Instead, specific science subjects could explain the link between performance, anxiety, and—perhaps also subsequent career considerations. The theoretical contribution is highlighting the subject-specific nature of science anxiety: it may be more nuanced. This knowledge can be used to refine theoretical models of (STEM-related) academic anxiety and performance. From a more practical perspective, knowing that girls have higher science anxiety but not necessarily lower ability could be used to form more positive attitudes in girls regarding science. For instance, although underestimated students may perform as well as others, they often have lower academic self-concept and expectations for success (Urhahne et al., 2011 ). This is also associated with poorer expectations from teachers (Urhahne et al., 2011 ). It could be argued that the societal expectations for gender roles (Hägglund & Leuze, 2021 ; Schmitt et al., 2008 ) may exacerbate the underestimation of the role of girls in science, potentially shaping the attitudes of girls towards science and STEM in general. Hence, developing programs or approaches to inform the students and educators about girls being equally capable but more anxious in science than boys could be used towards building more realistic self-concepts regarding science. This may, in turn, help alleviate the gender gap in STEM.

The main limitation of this study is the cross-sectional design. Although anxiety toward science and specific subjects likely precedes test performance, the potential impact of test performance on other evaluations cannot be ruled out. Another limitation is relying on single items in some of the exploratory analyses. However, the items like test appeal and difficulty are relatively straightforward. In addition, studies have shown that single-item measures can yield results as reliable and valid as those of longer questionnaires (Diamantopoulos et al., 2012 ; Gardner et al., 1998 ; Rossiter, 2002 ). Even though test-taking duration might be an indication of test-taking effort (Silm et al., 2020 ), we acknowledge that we cannot definitively distinguish between rapid guessing, proficiency, diligence, and difficulty in answering. Although out of the scope in the present study, such distinction could be made by investigating the link between response patterns and timestamps of response events. While the anxiety-related items used in this study mostly focused on how the students generally felt about typical science-related educational situations (e.g., regarding homeworks), it should also be noted that the potential test anxiety experienced by students could also have influenced the post-test science anxiety evaluations. Future studies could consider implementing both before and after assessments.

The role of technology in STEM education can also be investigated in light of the present results. For instance, the use of virtual reality (Yang et al., 2024 ), social media (Achilleos et al., 2019 ; He et al., 2016 ), as well as smartphones (Mella-Norambuena et al., 2021 ; Smith et al., 2023 ) has shown promise in STEM education with regard to improving students’ motivation. More research is needed to investigate gender differences in technology use in STEM settings. In addition, the use of digital technology in classroom settings should be done with caution (Aru & Rozgonjuk, 2022 ; Rozgonjuk, Täht, et al., 2021), as studies have shown that social media and smartphone use, as well as notifications received from these media and devices, are linked to more procrastination (Rozgonjuk et al., 2018a , 2018b ), superficial learning styles (Rozgonjuk et al., 2019 ; Rozgonjuk, Saal, et al., 2018), and boredom proneness (Elhai et al., 2021 ; Wolniewicz et al., 2020 ). Hence, non-skillful implementation of technology assistance may not necessarily improve the attitudes towards science.

Finally, it would be interesting to compare the science-related variables of this study with other STEM components, such as engineering and mathematics, as well as in interdisciplinary contexts (Darmawansah et al., 2023 ; Gao et al., 2020 ).

In this study, we focused on the interplay and gender differences in the S-domain of STEM: science. Although some of the findings were in line with previous results from the general STEM and mathematics education fields, there are also indications that “science” might not be a broad concept. Anxiety toward science might be subject-specific. Furthermore, the results showed that although there were no gender differences in terms of science test performance, girls reported consistently higher levels of anxiety, both in terms of general and subject-specific science. However, the correlations between anxiety measures and performance were not stronger in girls than in boys. The results suggest that the gender gap in STEM might not necessarily stem from ability but rather motivational variables, such as anxiety. However, additional research is needed to establish the source of science-related anxiety in girls and its potential impact on pursuing a STEM career.

Availability of data and materials

The aggregated data used in the present study will be considered to be made available upon scholarly request.

Achilleos, A. P., Mettouris, C., Yeratziotis, A., Papadopoulos, G. A., Pllana, S., Huber, F., Jager, B., Leitner, P., Ocsovszky, Z., & Dinnyes, A. (2019). SciChallenge: A social media aware platform for contest-based STEM education and motivation of young students. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 12 (1), 98–111. https://doi.org/10.1109/TLT.2018.2810879

Article   Google Scholar  

Alhadabi, A., & Karpinski, A. C. (2020). Grit, self-efficacy, achievement orientation goals, and academic performance in University students. International Journal of Adolescence and Youth, 25 (1), 519–535. https://doi.org/10.1080/02673843.2019.1679202

Andersen, L. (2014). Visual-spatial ability: important in STEM. Ignored in Gifted Education. Roeper Review, 36 (2), 114–121. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783193.2014.884198

Anni, K., Vainik, U., & Mõttus, R. (2023). Personality profiles of 263 occupations. PsyArXiv . https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/ajvg2

Aru, J., & Rozgonjuk, D. (2022). The effect of smartphone use on mental effort, learning, and creativity. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 26 (10), 821–823. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2022.07.002

Balducci, M. (2023). Linking gender differences with gender equality: A systematic-narrative literature review of basic skills and personality. Frontiers in Psychology, 14 , 1105234. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1105234

Baloglu, M., & Kocak, R. (2006). A multivariate investigation of the differences in mathematics anxiety. Personality and Individual Differences . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2005.10.009

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control . W.H.: Freeman.

Google Scholar  

Berkowitz, M., & Stern, E. (2018). Which cognitive abilities make the difference? predicting academic achievements in advanced STEM studies. Journal of Intelligence, 6 (4), 48. https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence6040048

Burns, E. C., Martin, A. J., Kennett, R. K., Pearson, J., & Munro-Smith, V. (2021). Optimizing science self-efficacy: A multilevel examination of the moderating effects of anxiety on the relationship between self-efficacy and achievement in science. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 64 , 101937. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2020.101937

Bussey, K., & Bandura, A. (1999). Social cognitive theory of gender development and differentiation. Psychological Review, 106 (4), 676.

Carli, L. L., Alawa, L., Lee, Y., Zhao, B., & Kim, E. (2016). Stereotypes about gender and science: Women ≠ scientists. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 40 (2), 244–260. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684315622645

Caviola, S., Toffalini, E., Giofrè, D., Ruiz, J. M., Szűcs, D., & Mammarella, I. C. (2022). Math performance and academic anxiety forms, from sociodemographic to cognitive aspects: A Meta-analysis on 906,311 participants. Educational Psychology Review, 34 (1), 363–399. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-021-09618-5

Cheryan, S., Ziegler, S. A., Montoya, A. K., & Jiang, L. (2017). Why are some STEM fields more gender balanced than others? Psychological Bulletin, 143 (1), 1–35. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000052

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. L. Erlbaum Associates. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203771587

Cotner, S., Jeno, L. M., Walker, J. D., Jørgensen, C., & Vandvik, V. (2020). Gender gaps in the performance of Norwegian biology students: The roles of test anxiety and science confidence. International Journal of STEM Education, 7 (1), 55. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-020-00252-1

Daniels, E. A., & Robnett, R. D. (2021). The STEM pipeline: Do media and objectified body consciousness create an early exit for middle school girls? The Journal of Early Adolescence, 41 (7), 1099–1124. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272431620983442

Darmawansah, D., Hwang, G.-J., Chen, M.-R.A., & Liang, J.-C. (2023). Trends and research foci of robotics-based STEM education: A systematic review from diverse angles based on the technology-based learning model. International Journal of STEM Education, 10 (1), 12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-023-00400-3

Devine, A., Fawcett, K., Szűcs, D., & Dowker, A. (2012). Gender differences in mathematics anxiety and the relation to mathematics performance while controlling for test anxiety. Behavioral and Brain Functions, 8 (33), 1–9.

Diamantopoulos, A., Sarstedt, M., Fuchs, C., Wilczynski, P., & Kaiser, S. (2012). Guidelines for choosing between multi-item and single-item scales for construct measurement: A predictive validity perspective. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 40 (3), 434–449. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-011-0300-3

Dökme, İ, Açıksöz, A., & Koyunlu Ünlü, Z. (2022). Investigation of STEM fields motivation among female students in science education colleges. International Journal of STEM Education, 9 (1), 8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-022-00326-2

Dowker, A., Sarkar, A., & Looi, C. Y. (2016). Mathematics anxiety: What have we learned in 60 years? Frontiers in Psychology . https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00508

Early, E., Miller, S., Dunne, L., Thurston, A., & Filiz, M. (2020). The influence of socio-economic background and gender on school attainment in the United Kingdom: A systematic review. Review of Education, 8 (1), 120–152. https://doi.org/10.1002/rev3.3175

Elhai, J. D., Rozgonjuk, D., Alghraibeh, A. M., & Yang, H. (2021). Disrupted daily activities from interruptive smartphone notifications: Relations with depression and anxiety severity and the mediating role of boredom proneness. Social Science Computer Review . https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439319858008

Foley, A. E., Herts, J. B., Borgonovi, F., Guerriero, S., Levine, S. C., & Beilock, S. L. (2017). The math anxiety-performance link: A global phenomenon. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 26 (1), 52–58. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721416672463

Fox, J. (2022). RcmdrMisc: R Commander Miscellaneous Functions (Version 2.7–2). https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=RcmdrMisc

Gao, X., Li, P., Shen, J., & Sun, H. (2020). Reviewing assessment of student learning in interdisciplinary STEM education. International Journal of STEM Education, 7 (1), 24. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-020-00225-4

Gardner, D. G., Cummings, L. L., Dunham, R. B., & Pierce, J. L. (1998). Single-Item versus multiple-item measurement scales: An empirical comparison. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 58 (6), 898–915. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164498058006003

Glynn, S. M., Taasoobshirazi, G., & Brickman, P. (2009). Science Motivation Questionnaire: Construct validation with nonscience majors. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46 (2), 127–146. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20267

Guzmán, B., Rodríguez, C., & Ferreira, R. A. (2023). Effect of parents’ mathematics anxiety and home numeracy activities on young children’s math performance-anxiety relationship. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 72 , 102140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2022.102140

Hägglund, A. E., & Leuze, K. (2021). Gender differences in STEM expectations across countries: How perceived labor market structures shape adolescents’ preferences. Journal of Youth Studies, 24 (5), 634–654. https://doi.org/10.1080/13676261.2020.1755029

He, L., Murphy, L., & Luo, J. (2016). Using social media to promote STEM Education: Matching college students with role models. In B. Berendt, B. Bringmann, É. Fromont, G. Garriga, P. Miettinen, N. Tatti, & V. Tresp (Eds.), Machine Learning and Knowledge Discovery in Databases (pp. 79–95). United States: Springer International Publishing.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Hofmann, R., Rozgonjuk, D., Soto, C. J., Ostendorf, F., & Mõttus, R. (2023). There are a million ways to be a woman and a million ways to be a man: Gender differences across personality nuances and nations. PsyArXiv . https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/cedwk

Kayan-Fadlelmula, F., Sellami, A., Abdelkader, N., & Umer, S. (2022). A systematic review of STEM education research in the GCC countries: Trends, gaps and barriers. International Journal of STEM Education, 9 (1), 2. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-021-00319-7

Kline, R. B. (2015). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling . New York: Guilford publications.

Lau, K.-C., & Ho, S.-C.E. (2022). Attitudes towards Science, teaching practices, and science performance in PISA 2015: Multilevel analysis of the chinese and western top performers. Research in Science Education, 52 (2), 415–426. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-020-09954-6

Leibham, M. B., Alexander, J. M., & Johnson, K. E. (2013). Science interests in preschool boys and girls: Relations to later self-concept and science achievement. Science Education, 97 (4), 574–593. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21066

Mac Giolla, E., & Kajonius, P. J. (2018). Sex differences in personality are larger in gender equal countries: Replicating and extending a surprising finding. International Journal of Psychology . https://doi.org/10.1002/ijop.12529

Li, Y., Wang, K., Xiao, Y., & Froyd, J. E. (2020). Research and trends in STEM education: A systematic review of journal publications. International Journal of STEM Education, 7 (1), 11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-020-00207-6

Mallow JV. (2006) Science anxiety: Research and action. Handbook of college science teaching. 3–14

Master, A. H., & Meltzoff, A. N. (2020). Cultural stereotypes and sense of belonging contribute to gender gaps in STEM. International Journal of Gender, Science and Technology, 12 (1), 152–198.

Master, A. H., Meltzoff, A. N., & Cheryan, S. (2021). Gender stereotypes about interests start early and cause gender disparities in computer science and engineering. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118 (48), e2100030118. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2100030118

Mazana, M. Y., Montero, C. S., & Casmir, R. O. (2018). Investigating students’ attitude towards learning mathematics. International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education . https://doi.org/10.29333/iejme/3997

McKinney, J., Chang, M.-L., & Glassmeyer, D. (2021). Why females choose STEM majors: Understanding the relationships between major, personality, interests, self-efficacy, and anxiety. Journal for STEM Education Research, 4 (3), 278–300. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41979-021-00050-6

Megreya, A. M., Szűcs, D., & Moustafa, A. A. (2021). The abbreviated science anxiety scale: Psychometric properties, gender differences and associations with test anxiety, general anxiety and science achievement. PLoS ONE, 16 (2), e0245200. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0245200

Mella-Norambuena, J., Cobo-Rendon, R., Lobos, K., Sáez-Delgado, F., & Maldonado-Trapp, A. (2021). Smartphone use among undergraduate STEM students during COVID-19: An opportunity for higher education? Education Sciences, 11 (8), 417. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11080417

Mõttus, R., & Rozgonjuk, D. (2021). Development is in the details: Age differences in the Big Five domains, facets, and nuances. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology . https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000276

Namkung, J. M., Peng, P., & Lin, X. (2019). The relation between mathematics anxiety and mathematics performance among school-aged students: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 89 (3), 459–496. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654319843494

Navarro D. (2015) Learning statistics with R: A tutorial for psychology students and other beginners . http://health.adelaide.edu.au/psychology/ ccs/teaching/lsr/.

OECD. (2019a). Chapter 7 girls’ and boys’ performance in PISA In PISA 2018 results (Volume II): where all students can succeed. OECD . https://doi.org/10.1787/b5fd1b8f-en

OECD. (2019b). TALIS 2018 results (volume I): Teachers and school leaders as lifelong learners. OECD . https://doi.org/10.1787/1d0bc92a-en

OECD. (2024) OECD Dashboard on Gender Gaps . https://oecd.org/stories/gender/dashboard

Özcan, Z. Ç., & Eren Gümüş, A. (2019). A modeling study to explain mathematical problem-solving performance through metacognition, self-efficacy, motivation, and anxiety. Australian Journal of Education, 63 (1), 116–134. https://doi.org/10.1177/0004944119840073

Pekrun, R., Hall, N. C., Goetz, T., & Perry, R. P. (2014). Boredom and academic achievement: Testing a model of reciprocal causation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 106 (3), 696–710. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036006

Pelch, M. (2018). Gendered differences in academic emotions and their implications for student success in STEM. International Journal of STEM Education . https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-018-0130-7

Potvin, P., & Hasni, A. (2014). Interest, motivation and attitude towards science and technology at K-12 levels: A systematic review of 12 years of educational research. Studies in Science Education, 50 (1), 85–129. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057267.2014.881626

Potvin, P., Hasni, A., Sy, O., & Riopel, M. (2020). Two crucial years of science and technology schooling: A longitudinal study of the major influences on and interactions between self-concept, interest, and the intention to pursue S&T. Research in Science Education, 50 (5), 1739–1761. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-018-9751-6

Rannikmäe, M., Vaino, K., Soobard, R., Teppo, M., & Reisenbuk, E. (2023). Lühikokkuvõte 2022/2023. Õppeaasta loodusainete IV kooliastme katselise tasemetöö tulemustest [A brief summary of the proficiency test results for natural sciences in the IV grade level for the 2022/2023 academic year.]. Education and Youth Board of Estonia.

R Core Team. (2023) R: A language and environment for statistical computing (Version 4.3.0) [Computer software]. R Core Team.

Reilly, D., Neumann, D. L., & Andrews, G. (2015). Sex differences in mathematics and science achievement: A meta-analysis of national assessment of educational progress assessments. Journal of Educational Psychology, 107 (3), 645–662. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000012

Revelle W. (2021). psych: Procedures for personality and psychological research. (Version 2.2.3) [Computer software]. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=psych

Rios, J. A., Deng, J., & Ihlenfeldt, S. D. (2022). To what degree does rapid guessing distort aggregated test scores? A Meta-Analytic Investigation. Educational Assessment, 27 (4), 356–373. https://doi.org/10.1080/10627197.2022.2110465

Rossiter, J. R. (2002). The C-OAR-SE procedure for scale development in marketing. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 19 (4), 305–335. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-8116(02)00097-6

Rozgonjuk, D., Elhai, J. D., Ryan, T., & Scott, G. G. (2019). Fear of missing out is associated with disrupted activities from receiving smartphone notifications and surface learning in college students. Computers Education, 140 , 103590. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.05.016

Rozgonjuk, D., Kattago, M., & Täht, K. (2018a). Social media use in lectures mediates the relationship between procrastination and problematic smartphone use. Computers in Human Behavior, 89 , 191–198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.08.003

Rozgonjuk, D., Saal, K., & Täht, K. (2018b). Problematic smartphone use, deep and surface approaches to learning, and social media use in lectures. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health . https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15010092

Rozgonjuk, D., Konstabel, K., Barker, K., Rannikmäe, M., & Täht, K. (2023). Epistemic beliefs in science, socio-economic status, and mathematics and science test results in lower secondary education: A multilevel perspective. Educational Psychology, 43 (1), 22–37. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2022.2144143

Rozgonjuk, D., Kraav, T., Mikkor, K., Orav-Puurand, K., & Täht, K. (2020). Mathematics anxiety among STEM and social sciences students: The roles of mathematics self-efficacy, and deep and surface approach to learning. International Journal of STEM Education . https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-020-00246-z

Rozgonjuk, D., Schmitz, F., Kannen, C., & Montag, C. (2021a). Cognitive ability and personality: Testing broad to nuanced associations with a smartphone app. Intelligence, 88 , 101578. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2021.101578

Rozgonjuk, D., Täht, K., & Vassil, K. (2021b). Internet use at and outside of school in relation to low- and high-stakes mathematics test scores across 3 years. International Journal of STEM Education . https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-021-00287-y

Sakellariou, C., & Fang, Z. (2021). Self-efficacy and interest in STEM subjects as predictors of the STEM gender gap in the US: The role of unobserved heterogeneity. International Journal of Educational Research, 109 , 101821. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2021.101821

Sawilowsky, S. S. (2009). New Effect size rules of Thumb. Journal of Modern Applied Statistical Methods . https://doi.org/10.22237/jmasm/1257035100

Schmader, T. (2023). Gender inclusion and fit in STEM. Annual Review of Psychology, 74 (1), 219–243. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-032720-043052

Schmitt, D. P., Realo, A., Voracek, M., & Allik, J. (2008). Why can’t a man be more like a woman? sex differences in Big Five personality traits across 55 cultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology . https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.94.1.168

Sevilla, M. P., & Snodgrass Rangel, V. (2023). Gender differences in STEM career development in postsecondary vocational-technical education. a social cognitive career theory test. Journal of Career Development, 50 (2), 255–272. https://doi.org/10.1177/08948453221086979

Shapiro, J. R., & Williams, A. M. (2012). The role of stereotype threats in undermining girls’ and women’s performance and interest in STEM fields. Sex Roles, 66 (3–4), 175–183. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-011-0051-0

Silm, G., Must, O., & Täht, K. (2013). Test-taking effort as a predictor of performance in low-stakes tests. Trames Journal of the Humanities and Social Sciences . https://doi.org/10.3176/tr.2013.4.08

Silm, G., Pedaste, M., & Täht, K. (2020). The relationship between performance and test-taking effort when measured with self-report or time-based instruments: A meta-analytic review. Educational Research Review, 31 , 100335. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2020.100335

Silver, N. C., & Dunlap, W. P. (1987). Averaging correlation coefficients: Should Fisher’s z transformation be used? Journal of Applied Psychology, 72 (1), 146–148. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.72.1.146

Smith, J. R., Snapp, B., Madar, S., Brown, J. R., Fowler, J., Andersen, M., Porter, C. D., & Orban, C. (2023). A smartphone-based virtual reality plotting system for STEM education. Primus, 33 (1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/10511970.2021.2006378

So, W. W. M., Chen, Y., & Chow, S. C. F. (2022). Primary school students’ interests in STEM careers: How conceptions of STEM professionals and gender moderation influence. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 32 (1), 33–53. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-020-09599-6

Stoet, G., & Geary, D. C. (2018). The gender-equality paradox in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education. Psychological Science, 29 (4), 581–593. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797617741719

Täht, K., Mikkor, K., Aaviste, G., & Rozgonjuk, D. (2023). What motivates and demotivates Estonian mathematics teachers to continue teaching? The roles of self-efficacy, work satisfaction, and work experience. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education . https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-023-09587-2

Tandrayen-Ragoobur, V., & Gokulsing, D. (2022). Gender gap in STEM education and career choices: What matters? Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education, 14 (3), 1021–1040. https://doi.org/10.1108/JARHE-09-2019-0235

Tobias, S., & Weissbrod, C. (1980). Anxiety and mathematics: An update. Harvard Educational Review . https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.50.1.xw483257j6035084

Treialt SL. (2021). Women in STEM fields, career choices and gender pay gap: Evidence from the Baltics .

Urhahne, D., Chao, S.-H., Florineth, M. L., Luttenberger, S., & Paechter, M. (2011). Academic self-concept, learning motivation, and test anxiety of the underestimated student: The underestimated student. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 81 (1), 161–177. https://doi.org/10.1348/000709910X504500

Vaino, K., Rosin, T., Liiber, Ü., Soobard, R., Teppo, M., Valdmann, A., Reisenbuk, E., & Rannikmäe, M. (2024). The development of a national e-test on science competence for the third school level: An assessment to support learning. Eesti Haridusteaduste Ajakiri Estonian Journal of Education, 12 (1), 88–120. https://doi.org/10.12697/eha.2024.12.1.05

Verdugo-Castro, S., García-Holgado, A., & Sánchez-Gómez, M. C. (2022). The gender gap in higher STEM studies: A systematic literature review. Heliyon, 8 (8), e10300. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e10300

Vos, H., Marinova, M., De Léon, S. C., Sasanguie, D., & Reynvoet, B. (2023). Gender differences in young adults’ mathematical performance: Examining the contribution of working memory, math anxiety and gender-related stereotypes. Learning and Individual Differences, 102 , 102255. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2022.102255

Voyer, D., & Voyer, S. D. (2014). Gender differences in scholastic achievement: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin . https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036620

Wang, N., Tan, A.-L., Zhou, X., Liu, K., Zeng, F., & Xiang, J. (2023). Gender differences in high school students’ interest in STEM careers: A multi-group comparison based on structural equation model. International Journal of STEM Education, 10 (1), 59. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-023-00443-6

Warren, L., Reilly, D., Herdan, A., & Lin, Y. (2020). Self-efficacy, performance and the role of blended learning. Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education, 13 (1), 98–111. https://doi.org/10.1108/JARHE-08-2019-0210

Widya, R., & R., & Laila Rahmi, Y. (2019). STEM education to fulfil the 21st century demand: A literature review. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1317 (1), 012208. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1317/1/012208

Wolniewicz, C. A., Rozgonjuk, D., & Elhai, J. D. (2020). Boredom proneness and fear of missing out mediate relations between depression and anxiety with problematic smartphone use. Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies, 2 , 61–70. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbe2.159

Yang, C., Zhang, J., Hu, Y., Yang, X., Chen, M., Shan, M., & Li, L. (2024). The impact of virtual reality on practical skills for students in science and engineering education: A meta-analysis. International Journal of STEM Education, 11 (1), 28. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-024-00487-2

Zakariya, Y. F. (2022). Improving students’ mathematics self-efficacy: A systematic review of intervention studies. Frontiers in Psychology, 13 , 986622. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.986622

Zander, L., Höhne, E., Harms, S., Pfost, M., & Hornsey, M. J. (2020). When grades are high but self-efficacy is low: unpacking the confidence gap between girls and boys in mathematics. Frontiers in Psychology, 11 , 552355. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.552355

Živković, M., Pellizzoni, S., Doz, E., Cuder, A., Mammarella, I., & Passolunghi, M. C. (2023). Math self-efficacy or anxiety? The role of emotional and motivational contribution in math performance. Social Psychology of Education, 26 (3), 579–601. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-023-09760-8

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the Education and Youth Board of Estonia for providing the data. Dr. Rozgonjuk was affiliated with University of Tartu at the time of conducting this study. He now works in the private sector, and his contribution to this paper was made independently during his free time.

This study was supported by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 project „SciCar“ (Addressing Attractiveness of Science Career Awareness) No. 952470. Dr. Täht’s work was supported by the Estonian Research Council Grant PRG2190.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Institute of Psychology, University of Tartu, Tartu, Estonia

Dmitri Rozgonjuk & Karin Täht

Institute of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Tartu, Tartu, Estonia

Institute of Ecology and Earth Sciences, University of Tartu, Tartu, Estonia

Regina Soobard, Moonika Teppo & Miia Rannikmäe

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

DR: study conceptualization, data analysis, writing the first manuscript draft; KT: study conceptualization, critical review; RS: critical review; MT: critical review; MR: study conceptualization, critical review.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Dmitri Rozgonjuk or Miia Rannikmäe .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

The Education and Youth Board of Estonia ordered the study as part of the national educational policy assessment. The procedure of the study was in accordance with national legislation and ethical principles. That includes the informed consent regarding voluntary participation in the study from the participants.

Competing interests

The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

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

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1., rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Rozgonjuk, D., Täht, K., Soobard, R. et al. The S in STEM: gender differences in science anxiety and its relations with science test performance-related variables. IJ STEM Ed 11 , 45 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-024-00504-4

Download citation

Received : 03 March 2024

Accepted : 26 August 2024

Published : 17 September 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-024-00504-4

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Science education
• Science anxiety
• Test performance
• Secondary education
• Gender differences
• Gender gap in STEM

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
• Journal Proposal
• 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
• 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

Advancing phantom fabrication: exploring 3d-printed solutions for abdominal imaging research.

1. Introduction

2. materials and methods, 2.1. characterization of appendix simulation in an anthropomorphic phantom, 2.2. material selection and characterization, 2.3. printing of the abdominal mold, 2.4. phantom fabrication, 4. discussion, 5. conclusions, author contributions, institutional review board statement, informed consent statement, data availability statement, conflicts of interest.

• Mørup, S.D.; Stowe, J.; Precht, H.; Gervig, M.H.; Foley, S. Design of a 3D printed coronary artery model for CT optimization. Radiography 2022 , 28 , 426–432. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Tino, R.; Yeo, A.; Leary, M.; Brandt, M.; Kron, T. A systematic review on 3D-printed imaging and dosimetry phantoms in radiation therapy. Technol. Cancer Res. Treat. 2019 , 18 , 1533033819870208. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Hazelaar, C.; van Eijnatten, M.; Dahele, M.; Wolff, J.; Forouzanfar, T.; Slotman, B.; Verbakel, W.F. Using 3D printing techniques to create an anthropomorphic thorax phantom for medical imaging purposes. Med. Phys. 2018 , 45 , 92–100. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Amini, I.; Akhlaghi, P.; Sarbakhsh, P. Construction and verification of a physical chest phantom from suitable tissue equivalent materials for computed tomography examinations. Radiat. Phys. Chem. 2018 , 150 , 51–57. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Tejo-Otero, A.; Fenollosa-Artés, F.; Achaerandio, I.; Rey-Vinolas, S.; Buj-Corral, I.; Mateos-Timoneda, M.Á.; Engel, E. Soft-tissue-mimicking using hydrogels for the development of phantoms. Gels 2022 , 8 , 40. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Buchwald, R.; Breed, M.D.; Greenberg, A.R. The thermal properties of beeswaxes: Unexpected findings. J. Exp. Biol. 2008 , 211 , 121–127. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Yan, Q.; Dong, H.; Su, J.; Han, J.; Song, B.; Wei, Q.; Shi, Y. A review of 3D printing technology for medical applications. Engineering 2018 , 4 , 729–742. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Rajan, K.; Samykano, M.; Kadirgama, K.; Harun, W.S.; Rahman, M.M. Fused deposition modeling: Process, materials, parameters, properties, and applications. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 2022 , 120 , 1531–1570. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Vyavahare, S.; Teraiya, S.; Panghal, D.; Kumar, S. Fused deposition modelling: A review. Rapid Prototyp. J. 2020 , 26 , 176–201. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Gear, J.I.; Cummings, C.; Craig, A.J.; Divoli, A.; Long, C.D.; Tapner, M.; Flux, G.D. Abdo-Man: A 3D-printed anthropomorphic phantom for validating quantitative SIRT. EJNMMI Phys. 2016 , 3 , 17. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Qiu, J.; Hou, K.; Dyer, B.A.; Chen, J.C.; Shi, L.; Sun, Y.; Xu, L.; Zhao, H.; Li, Z.; Chen, T.; et al. Constructing customized multimodal phantoms through 3D printing: A preliminary evaluation. Front. Phys. 2021 , 9 , 605630. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Filippou, V.; Tsoumpas, C. Recent advances on the development of phantoms using 3D printing for imaging with CT, MRI, PET, SPECT, and ultrasound. Med. Phys. 2018 , 45 , e740–e760. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Wang, K.; Ho, C.C.; Zhang, C.; Wang, B. A review on the 3D printing of functional structures for medical phantoms and regenerated tissue and organ applications. Engineering 2017 , 3 , 653–662. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Coles-Black, J.; Bolton, D.; Robinson, D.; Chuen, J. Utility of 3D printed abdominal aortic aneurysm phantoms: A systematic review. ANZ J. Surg. 2021 , 91 , 1673–1681. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Higgins, M.; Leung, S.; Radacsi, N. 3D printing surgical phantoms and their role in the visualization of medical procedures. Ann. 3D Print. Med. 2022 , 6 , 100057. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Anwari, V.; Lai, A.; Ursani, A.; Rego, K.; Karasfi, B.; Sajja, S.; Paul, N. 3D printed CT-based abdominal structure mannequin for enabling research. 3D Print. Med. 2020 , 6 , 3. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Schenkl, S.; Muggenthaler, H.; Hubig, M.; Erdmann, B.; Weiser, M.; Zachow, S.; Heinrich, A.; Güttler, F.V.; Teichgräber, U.; Mall, G. Automatic CT-based finite element model generation for temperature-based death time estimation: Feasibility study and sensitivity analysis. Int. J. Leg. Med. 2017 , 131 , 699–712. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Rengier, F.; Mehndiratta, A.; Von Tengg-Kobligk, H.; Zechmann, C.M.; Unterhinninghofen, R.; Kauczor, H.U.; Giesel, F.L. 3D printing based on imaging data: Review of medical applications. Int. J. Comput. Assist. Radiol. Surg. 2010 , 5 , 335–341. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Okkalidis, N. 3D printing methods for radiological anthropomorphic phantoms. Phys. Med. Biol. 2022 , 67 , 15TR04. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kairn, T.; Crowe, S.B.; Markwell, T. Use of 3D printed materials as tissue-equivalent phantoms. In Proceedings of the World Congress on Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering, Toronto, ON, Canada, 7–12 June 2015; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2015; pp. 728–731. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lamba, R.; McGahan, J.P.; Corwin, M.T.; Li, C.S.; Tran, T.; Seibert, J.A.; Boone, J.M. CT Hounsfield numbers of soft tissues on unenhanced abdominal CT scans: Variability between two different manufacturers’ MDCT scanners. Am. J. Roentgenol. 2014 , 203 , 1013–1020. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• D’Souza, W.D.; Madsen, E.L.; Unal, O.; Vigen, K.K.; Frank, G.R.; Thomadsen, B.R. Tissue mimicking materials for a multi-imaging modality prostate phantom. Med. Phys. 2001 , 28 , 688–700. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Holmes, R.B.; Negus, I.S.; Wiltshire, S.J.; Thorne, G.C.; Young, P.; Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative. Creation of an anthropomorphic CT head phantom for verification of image segmentation. Med. Phys. 2020 , 47 , 2380–2391. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kim, S.Y.; Park, J.W.; Park, J.; Yea, J.W.; Oh, S.A. Fabrication of 3D printed head phantom using plaster mixed with polylactic acid powder for patient-specific QA in intensity-modulated radiotherapy. Sci. Rep. 2022 , 12 , 17500. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Marro, A.; Bandukwala, T.; Mak, W. Three-dimensional printing and medical imaging: A review of the methods and applications. Curr. Probl. Diagn. Radiol. 2016 , 45 , 2–9. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Haleem, A.; Javaid, M.; Suman, R.; Singh, R.P. 3D printing applications for radiology: An overview. Indian J. Radiol. Imaging 2021 , 31 , 10–17. [ Google Scholar ] [ PubMed ]
• Giannopoulos, A.A.; Steigner, M.L.; George, E.; Barile, M.; Hunsaker, A.R.; Rybicki, F.J.; Mitsouras, D. Cardiothoracic applications of 3-dimensional printing. J. Thorac. Imaging 2016 , 31 , 253–272. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Rai, R.; Manton, D.; Jameson, M.G.; Josan, S.; Barton, M.B.; Holloway, L.C.; Liney, G.P. 3D printed phantoms mimicking cortical bone for the assessment of ultrashort echo time magnetic resonance imaging. Med. Phys. 2018 , 45 , 758–766. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Cook, T.S.; Steingall, S.J.; Steingall, S.R.; Boonn, W.W. Establishing and running a three-dimensional and advanced imaging laboratory. Radiographics 2018 , 38 , 1799–1809. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Linguraru, M.G.; Yao, J.; Gautam, R.; Peterson, J.; Li, Z.; Linehan, W.M.; Summers, R.M. Renal tumor quantification and classification in contrast-enhanced abdominal CT. Pattern Recognit. 2009 , 42 , 1149–1161. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Cardenas, C.E.; Yang, J.; Anderson, B.M.; Court, L.E.; Brock, K.B. Advances in auto-segmentation. In Seminars in Radiation Oncology ; WB Saunders: Philadelphia, PA, USA, 2019; Volume 29, pp. 185–197. [ Google Scholar ]
• Demehri, S.; Muhit, A.; Zbijewski, W.; Stayman, J.W.; Yorkston, J.; Packard, N.; Senn, R.; Yang, D.; Foos, D.; Thawait, G.K.; et al. Assessment of image quality in soft tissue and bone visualization tasks for a dedicated extremity cone-beam CT system. Eur. Radiol. 2015 , 25 , 1742–1751. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Goldman, L.W. Principles of CT: Radiation dose and image quality. J. Nucl. Med. Technol. 2007 , 35 , 213–225. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Mitsouras, D.; Liacouras, P.; Imanzadeh, A.; Giannopoulos, A.A.; Cai, T.; Kumamaru, K.K.; George, E.; Wake, N.; Caterson, E.J.; Pomahac, B.; et al. Medical 3D printing for the radiologist. Radiographics 2015 , 35 , 1965–1988. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Jusufbegović, M.; Pandžić, A.; Šehić, A.; Jašić, R.; Julardžija, F.; Vegar-Zubović, S.; Beganović, A. Computed tomography tissue equivalence of 3D printing materials. Radiography 2022 , 28 , 788–792. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Hepburn, H.R.; Pirk, C.W.; Duangphakdee, O.; Hepburn, H.R.; Pirk, C.W.; Duangphakdee, O. The chemistry of beeswax. In Honeybee Nests: Composition, Structure, Function ; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2014; pp. 319–339. [ Google Scholar ]
• European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). Risk Assessment of Beeswax Adulterated with Paraffin and/or Stearin/Stearic Acid When Used in Apiculture and as Food (Honeycomb). EFSA Support. Publ. 2020 , 17 , 1859E. [ Google Scholar ]

Click here to enlarge figure

Share and Cite

Becircic, M.; Delibegovic, S.; Sehic, A.; Julardzija, F.; Beganovic, A.; Ljuca, K.; Pandzic, A.; Jusufbegovic, M. Advancing Phantom Fabrication: Exploring 3D-Printed Solutions for Abdominal Imaging Research. Appl. Sci. 2024 , 14 , 8384. https://doi.org/10.3390/app14188384

Becircic M, Delibegovic S, Sehic A, Julardzija F, Beganovic A, Ljuca K, Pandzic A, Jusufbegovic M. Advancing Phantom Fabrication: Exploring 3D-Printed Solutions for Abdominal Imaging Research. Applied Sciences . 2024; 14(18):8384. https://doi.org/10.3390/app14188384

Becircic, Muris, Samir Delibegovic, Adnan Sehic, Fuad Julardzija, Adnan Beganovic, Kenana Ljuca, Adi Pandzic, and Merim Jusufbegovic. 2024. "Advancing Phantom Fabrication: Exploring 3D-Printed Solutions for Abdominal Imaging Research" Applied Sciences 14, no. 18: 8384. https://doi.org/10.3390/app14188384

Article Metrics

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

Subscribe to receive issue release notifications and newsletters from MDPI journals

Does Digital Government Transformation Drive Social Inclusion? Evidence from Female Entrepreneurship in China?

• Research Article
• Published: 17 September 2024

Cite this article

• Rong Ran 1 ,
• Xiaoran Yang   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-5060-9629 1 ,
• Zhiyang Liu 2 ,
• Qiqi Wang 3 &
• Yejing Chen 1  

As social inclusion increasingly relies on technological drivers, digital government transformation (DGT) has been recognized as critical for promoting social inclusion. A growing body of literature has explored the relationship between DGT and the social and political participation of disadvantaged and marginalized groups within social inclusion. However, the impact of DGT on the economic participation of these groups remains unclear. Given that female entrepreneurship is an important representation of the economic participation of disadvantaged and marginalized groups, we utilize a quasi-natural experiment involving the adoption of the city brain and employ panel data from 281 Chinese cities from 2014 to 2020, using a time-varying difference-in-differences model to investigate the impact of DGT on female entrepreneurship. This study reveals that DGT promotes regional female entrepreneurship. Business environment optimization, digital inclusive finance development, and technical talent gathering mediate this effect. The positive impact is further strengthened by the government’s policy attention to entrepreneurship and digital technology. This study clarifies the impact of DGT on the economic participation of disadvantaged and marginalized groups from the perspective of female entrepreneurship, thereby advancing research on the beneficial effects of DGT on social inclusion.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Explore related subjects

• Artificial Intelligence

Data Availability

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

For example, the Bozhou City Brain has collected a large amount of data through data-driven means, constructing an integration information platform throughout the entire process of the production and sale of special traditional Chinese medicine and agricultural products, providing resources and offering entrepreneurial opportunities related to characteristic traditional Chinese medicine and agricultural products to all social subjects equally. Meanwhile, it also establishes government service scenarios through technological-driven means that benefit all local social subjects, carrying out reforms such as one-stop online offices and “application-free enjoyment” involving a wide range of governmental matters such as enterprise start-ups and business subsidies, effectively realizing the optimization of service processes and compression of business processes. This can facilitate the entrepreneurship of all local social subjects who are willing to start their own business.

The Hangzhou City Brain has built a “pro-clearance online” platform that realizes the integration, standardization, and precise disclosure of enterprise-friendly policies for the whole society and provides an interactive communication channel for all social subjects, fully realizing the integration of information through data-driven means. Meanwhile, this platform also establishes an online licensing function through technological-driven means, providing one-stop government services involving business start-ups and various administrative approval matters, greatly reducing the time and cost of high-frequency government service completion. These information resources and efficient service initiatives for business start-ups are accessible to all social subjects and can provide opportunities for all entrepreneurs. (Source: City Brain Casebook (2022) published by China Electronics Standardization Institute, and corresponding city government websites.)

https://www.gov.cn/xinwen/2016-03/17/content_5054992.htm .

Based on the industry classification of the China Securities Regulatory Commission (CSRC) in 2017, we juxtapose manufacturing industry segments with other industries and conduct cluster analysis according to the factor intensity of the industry. The corresponding industry codes for labor-intensive industries are A, B, D, E, F, G, H, L, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, C13, C14, C15, C16, C17, C18, C19, C20, C21, C22, the corresponding industry codes for capital-intensive industries are J, K, C23, C24, C25, C26, C29, C30, C31, C32, C33, C43, and the corresponding industry codes for technology-intensive industries are I, M, C27, C28, C34, C35, C36, C37, C38, C39, C40, C41, C42.

Addo, A., and P. K. Senyo. 2021. Advancing e-governance for development: Digital identification and its link to socioeconomic inclusion. Government Information Quarterly 38(2): 101568.

Article   Google Scholar  

Allmann, K., and R. Radu. 2023. Digital footprints as barriers to accessing e-government services. Global Policy 14(1): 84–94.

Bannister, F., and R. Connolly. 2014. ICT, public values and transformative government: A framework and programme for research. Government Information Quarterly 31(1): 119–128.

Baron, R. M., and D. A. Kenny. 1986. The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 51(6): 1173–1182.

Bastien, F., R. Koop, T. A. Small, T. Giasson, and H. Jansen. 2020. The role of online technologies and digital skills in the political participation of citizens with disabilities. Journal of Information Technology & Politics 17(3): 218–231.

Beck, T., R. Levine, and A. Levkov. 2010. Big bad banks? The winners and losers from bank deregulation in the United States. The Journal of Finance 65(5): 1637–1667.

Berger, E. S. C., and A. Kuckertz. 2016. Female entrepreneurship in startup ecosystems worldwide. Journal of Business Research 69(11): 5163–5168.

Boulianne, S. 2009. Does internet use affect engagement? A meta-analysis of research. Political Communication 26(2): 193–211.

Čada, K., and K. Ptáčková. 2014. Between clients and bureaucrats: An ambivalent position of NGOs in the social inclusion agenda in Czech statutory cities. Policy and Society 33(2): 129–139.

Cai, Q., and C. Zhang. 2023. Does the smart city improve public service delivery? A quasi-natural experiment based on a smart city pilot program in China. Public Performance & Management Review 46(3): 752–769.

Cavallo, A., A. Ghezzi, and R. Balocco. 2019. Entrepreneurial ecosystem research: Present debates and future directions. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal 15(4): 1291–1321.

Chatterjee, S., S. Dutta Gupta, and P. Upadhyay. 2020. Technology adoption and entrepreneurial orientation for rural women: Evidence from India. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 160: 120236.

Chen, J., and C. Huang. 2021. Policy reinvention and diffusion: Evidence from Chinese provincial governments. Journal of Chinese Political Science 26(4): 723–741.

Chen, X., P. Zhou, and D. Hu. 2023. Influences of the ongoing digital transformation of the Chinese Economy on innovation of sustainable green technologies. Science of the Total Environment 875: 162708.

Chohan, S. R., and G. Hu. 2022. Strengthening digital inclusion through e-government: Cohesive ICT training programs to intensify digital competency. Information Technology for Development 28(1): 16–38.

Cinque, A., C. Poggi, and J. Miluka. 2024. How does fertility affect female employment? Evidence from Albania. The Journal of Development Studies 60(8): 1227–1245.

Cordella, A., and C. M. Bonina. 2012. A public value perspective for ICT enabled public sector reforms: A theoretical reflection. Government Information Quarterly 29(4): 512–520.

Crilly, D., N. Ni, and Y. Jiang. 2016. Do-no-harm versus do-good social responsibility: Attributional thinking and the liability of foreignness. Strategic Management Journal 37(7): 1316–1329.

Dunleavy, P., H. Margetts, S. Bastow, and J. Tinkler. 2006. New public management is dead—long live digital-era governance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 16(3): 467–494.

Engström, R., M. Nilsson, and G. Finnveden. 2008. Which environmental problems get policy attention? Examining energy and agricultural sector policies in Sweden. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 28(4): 241–255.

Eom, S.-J., and J. Lee. 2022. Digital government transformation in turbulent times: Responses, challenges, and future direction. Government Information Quarterly 39(2): 101690.

Fallon, K. M., and S. Boutilier. 2022. The digital divide within the women’s movement in Ghana: Implications for voice and inclusion. Social Movement Studies 21(5): 677–696.

Fan, Z., T. Christensen, and L. Ma. 2022. Policy attention and the adoption of public sector innovation. Public Management Review 25(10): 1815–1834.

Ferrata, L. 2019. Digital financial inclusion - an engine for leaving no one behind. Public Sector Economics 43(4): 445–458.

Foss, L., C. Henry, H. Ahl, and G. H. Mikalsen. 2019. Women’s entrepreneurship policy research: A 30-year review of the evidence. Small Business Economics 53(2): 409–429.

Fotopoulos, G., and D. J. Storey. 2019. Public policies to enhance regional entrepreneurship: Another programme failing to deliver? Small Business Economics 53(1): 189–209.

Fraser, N. 2009. Scales of justice: Reimagining political space in a globalizing world . New York: Columbia University.

Google Scholar  

Fung, A., H. Russon Gilman, and J. Shkabatur. 2013. Six models for the internet + politics. International Studies Review 15(1): 30–47.

Gao, X., and J. Tan. 2020. From web to weber: Understanding the case of one-go at most as ICT-driven government reform in contemporary China. China Review 20(3): 71–98.

Gray, J. 2004. Technology and social inclusion: Rethinking the digital divide. Journal of Economic Issues 38(1): 294–296.

Grossman, G., M. Humphreys, and G. Sacramone-Lutz. 2020. Information technology and political engagement: Mixed evidence from Uganda. The Journal of Politics 82(4): 1321–1336.

Guo, S., and T. Jiang. 2017. China’s new normal: From social control to social governance. Journal of Chinese Political Science 22(3): 327–340.

Ha, L. T. 2022a. Effects of digitalization on financialization: Empirical evidence from European countries. Technology in Society 68: 101851.

Ha, L. T. 2022b. Is e-government a driver to enhance entrepreneurship? An empirical investigation of European countries. Entrepreneurship Research Journal 14(3): 1311–1340.

Hanakata, N. C., and F. Bignami. 2023. Platform urbanization, its recent acceleration, and implications on citizenship. The case of Singapore Citizenship Studies 27(2): 189–209.

Haug, N., S. Dan, and I. Mergel. 2023. Digitally-induced change in the public sector: A systematic review and research agenda. Public Management Review 26(7): 1963–1987.

Hayes, A. F. 2013. Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach . New York: Guilford Press.

Hechavarría, D. M., and A. E. Ingram. 2019. Entrepreneurial ecosystem conditions and gendered national-level entrepreneurial activity: A 14-year panel study of GEM. Small Business Economics 53(2): 431–458.

Henry, C., S. Coleman, B. Orser, and L. Foss. 2022. Women’s entrepreneurship policy and access to financial capital in different countries: An institutional perspective. Entrepreneurship Research Journal 12(3): 227–262.

Hu, D., E. Wang, Q. Ye, S. Chen, and X. Gu. 2023. How do online public messages affect local government responsiveness in China? A multilevel analysis based on the message board for leaders. Journal of Chinese Political Science . https://doi.org/10.1007/s11366-023-09866-y

Hu, X., and F. Kong. 2021. Policy innovation of local officials in China: The administrative choice. Journal of Chinese Political Science 26(4): 695–721.

Huang, B., J. Yu. 2019. Leading digital technologies for coproduction: The case of visit once administrative service reform in Zhejiang Province, China. Journal of Chinese Political Science 24(3): 513–532.

Huang, Y., and M. Mayer. 2023. Power in the age of datafication: Exploring China’s global data power. Journal of Chinese Political Science 28(1): 25–49.

Huang, Z., Y. Tao, X. Luo, Y. Ye, and T. Lei. 2023. Regional digital finance and corporate investment efficiency in China. Applied Economics 55(43): 5115–5134.

Hudson, J. 2002. Digitising the structures of government: The UK’s information age government agenda. Policy & Politics 30(4): 515–531.

Ibáñez, M. J., and M. Guerrero. 2022. Women’s empowerment and emancipation through entrepreneurship: Extending Professor Alistair Anderson’s contributions. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development 34(7–8): 722–741.

Jiang, Y., X. Yu. 2024. Theoretical and practical aspects of data asset monetization in maritime enterprises. Fudan Journal of the Humanities and Social Sciences . https://doi.org/10.1007/s40647-024-00415-2

Jiao, H., L. Wang, and Y. Shi. 2022. How does institutional environment in the digital context affect technology entrepreneurship? The moderating roles of government digitalization and gender. Journal of Organizational Change Management 35(7): 1089–1112.

Kairiza, T., P. Kiprono, and V. Magadzire. 2017. Gender differences in financial inclusion amongst entrepreneurs in Zimbabwe. Small Business Economics 48(1): 259–272.

Kedir, A., and E. Kouame. 2022. FinTech and women’s entrepreneurship in Africa: The case of Burkina Faso and Cameroon. Journal of Cultural Economy 15(4): 452–467.

Kempin Reuter, T. 2019. Human rights and the city: Including marginalized communities in urban development and smart cities. Journal of Human Rights 18(4): 382–402.

King, S., and S. Cotterill. 2007. Transformational government? The role of information technology in delivering citizen-centric local public services. Local Government Studies 33(3): 333–354.

Klapper, L. F., and S. C. Parker. 2011. Gender and the business environment for new firm creation. The World Bank Research Observer 26(2): 237–257.

Leendertse, J., M. Schrijvers, and E. Stam. 2022. Measure twice, cut once: Entrepreneurial ecosystem metrics. Research Policy 51(9): 104336.

Li, Y., J. Zhang, and Y. Lyu. 2023. Does telecommunications infrastructure promote entrepreneurship in developing countries? Evidence from a quasi-natural experiment in China. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics 66: 106–119.

Lidén, G. 2016. Inequality in local digital politics: How different preconditions for citizen engagement can be explained. Policy & Internet 8(3): 270–291.

Liepmann, H., and C. Pignatti. 2024. Welfare effects of unemployment benefits when informality is high. Journal of Public Economics 229: 105032.

Liu, R., L. Zhang, Z. Cao, and J. Mi. 2024. Influence of gamification affordance on young citizens’ motivation and learning performance toward digital civic education. Journal of Chinese Governance 9(2): 244–278.

Lu, H., Y. Fan, L. Jiao, and Y. Wu. 2024. Assessment and spatial effect of urban agglomeration business environments: A case study of two urban agglomerations in China. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences 92: 101827.

Martins, J., and L. G. Veiga. 2022. Digital government as a business facilitator. Information Economics and Policy 60: 100990.

Mas-Tur, A. 2022. Female-driven social entrepreneurship in service business. Service Business 16(4): 791–795.

Meng, Q., and Z. Fan. 2022. Punctuations and diversity: Exploring dynamics of attention allocation in China’s e-government agenda. Policy Studies 43(3): 502–521.

Meng, T., and Z. Yang. 2020. Variety of responsive institutions and quality of responsiveness in cyber China. China Review 20(3): 13–42.

Mergel, I., N. Edelmann, and N. Haug. 2019. Defining digital transformation: Results from expert interviews. Government Information Quarterly 36(4): 101385.

Mossey, S., D. Bromberg, and A. P. Manoharan. 2019. Harnessing the power of mobile technology to bridge the digital divide: A look at U.S. cities’ mobile government capability. Journal of Information Technology & Politics 16(1): 52–65.

Noesselt, N. 2020. City brains and smart urbanization: Regulating ‘sharing economy’ innovation in China. Journal of Chinese Governance 5(4): 546–567.

Novo-Corti, I., L. Varela-Candamio, and M. T. García-Álvarez. 2014. Breaking the walls of social exclusion of women rural by means of ICTs: The case of ‘digital divides’ in Galician. Computers in Human Behavior 30: 497–507.

Pan, T., and B. Fan. 2023. Institutional pressures, policy attention, and e-government service capability: Evidence from China’s prefecture-level cities. Public Performance & Management Review 46(2): 445–471.

Peterson, H. L. 2018. Political information has bright colors: Narrative attention theory. Policy Studies Journal 46(4): 828–842.

Qian, N. 2008. Missing women and the price of tea in China: The effect of sex-specific earnings on sex imbalance. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 123(3): 1251–1285.

Ribes-Giner, G., I. Moya-Clemente, R. Cervelló-Royo, and M. R. Perello-Marin. 2018. Domestic economic and social conditions empowering female entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Research 89: 182–189.

Robles, J. M., C. Torres-Albero, and G. Villarino. 2022. Inequalities in digital welfare take-up: Lessons from e-government in Spain. Policy Studies 43(5): 1096–1111.

Royo, S., B. Bellò, L. Torres, and J. Downe. 2024. The success of e-participation. Learning lessons from Decide Madrid and we asked, you said, we did in Scotland. Policy & Internet 16(1): 65–82.

Sena, V., J. Scott, and S. Roper. 2012. Gender, borrowing patterns and self-employment: Some evidence for England. Small Business Economics 38(4): 467–480.

Shao, K., R. Ma, and J. Kamber. 2023. An in-depth analysis of the entrepreneurship of rural Chinese mothers and the digital inclusive finance. Telecommunications Policy 47(7): 102593.

Singh, J. P. 2019. Development finance 2.0: Do participation and information technologies matter? Review of International Political Economy 26(5): 886–910.

Song, M., and S. Wang. 2016. Can employment structure promote environment-biased technical progress? Technological Forecasting and Social Change 112: 285–292.

Song, Y., Y. Gong, Y. Song, and X. Chen. 2024. Exploring the impact of digital inclusive finance on consumption volatility: Insights from household entrepreneurship and income volatility. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 200: 123179.

Spilling, O. R. 1996. The entrepreneurial system: On entrepreneurship in the context of a mega-event. Journal of Business Research 36(1): 91–103.

Stam, E. 2015. Entrepreneurial ecosystems and regional policy: A sympathetic critique. European Planning Studies 23(9): 1759–1769.

Stam, E., and A. van de Ven. 2021. Entrepreneurial ecosystem elements. Small Business Economics 56(2): 809–832.

Steel, G. 2021. Going global – going digital. Diaspora networks and female online entrepreneurship in Khartoum, Sudan. Geoforum 120: 22–29.

Sullivan, S. E., and A. Al Ariss. 2019. Employment after retirement: A review and framework for future research. Journal of Management 45(1): 262–284.

Tangi, L., M. Janssen, M. Benedetti, and G. Noci. 2021. Digital government transformation: A structural equation modelling analysis of driving and impeding factors. International Journal of Information Management 60: 102356.

Terjesen, S., N. Bosma, and E. Stam. 2016. Advancing public policy for high-growth, female, and social entrepreneurs. Public Administration Review 76(2): 230–239.

Torfs, I., E. Wayenberg, and L. Danneels. 2023. Institutional shifts and punctuated patterns in digital policy. Review of Policy Research 40(3): 363–388.

Tsai, W.-H., and H.-C. Kuo. 2011. Entrepreneurship policy evaluation and decision analysis for SMEs. Expert Systems with Applications 38(7): 8343–8351.

Ughetto, E., M. Rossi, D. Audretsch, and E. E. Lehmann. 2020. Female entrepreneurship in the digital era. Small Business Economics 55(2): 305–312.

van den Berg, A. C., S. Giest, and W. Kraaij. 2023. Assessing inclusivity in online platforms through usability evaluation with Google Analytics. Policy & Internet 15(1): 55–77.

Van Winden, W. 2001. The end of social exclusion? On information technology policy as a key to social inclusion in large European cities. Regional Studies 35(9): 861–877.

Venkatesh, V., J. D. Shaw, T. A. Sykes, S. F. Wamba, and M. Macharia. 2017. Networks, technology, and entrepreneurship: A field quasi-experiment among women in rural India. Academy of Management Journal 60(5): 1709–1740.

Verheul, I., A. V. Stel, and R. Thurik. 2006. Explaining female and male entrepreneurship at the country level. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development 18(2): 151–183.

Viano, C., S. Avanzo, M. Cerutti, A. Cordero, C. Schifanella, and G. Boella. 2022. Blockchain tools for socio-economic interactions in local communities. Policy and Society 41(3): 373–385.

Vracheva, V., and I. Stoyneva. 2020. Does gender equality bridge or buffer the entrepreneurship gender gap? A cross-country investigation. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research 26(8): 1827–1844.

Wang, B., B. P. Y. Loo, and G. Huang. 2022. Becoming smarter through smart city pilot projects: Experiences and lessons from China since 2013. Journal of Urban Technology 29(4): 3–24.

Wang, Y., and R. Han. 2023. Cosmetic responsiveness: Why and how local authorities respond to mundane online complaints in China. Journal of Chinese Political Science 28(2): 187–207.

Wang, Y., and F. Z. Y. Hu. 2023. Housing market booms in Chinese cities: Boon or bane for urban entrepreneurship? Journal of Asian Public Policy 16(2): 199–220.

West, S. M. 2018. Searching for the public in internet governance: Examining infrastructures of participation at NETmundial. Policy & Internet 10(1): 22–42.

Xie, X., and Y. Wu. 2022. Doing well and doing good: How responsible entrepreneurship shapes female entrepreneurial success. Journal of Business Ethics 178(3): 803–828.

Xie, Z., X. Wang, L. Xie, S. Dun, and J. Li. 2021. Institutional context and female entrepreneurship: A country-based comparison using fsQCA. Journal of Business Research 132: 470–480.

Yan, X., and T. Li. 2022. Construction and application of urban digital infrastructure—practice of Urban Brain in facing COVID-19 in Hangzhou, China. Engineering Construction and Architectural Management 30(8): 3123–3141.

Yang, S., S. Ma, and J. Lu. 2022. Can government venture capital guidance funds promote urban innovation? Evidence from China. Growth and Change 53(2): 753–770.

Yang, X., Y. Huang, and M. Gao. 2022. Can digital financial inclusion promote female entrepreneurship? Evidence and mechanisms. The North American Journal of Economics and Finance 63: 101800.

Yang, X., R. Ran, Y. Chen, and J. Zhang. 2024. Does digital government transformation drive regional green innovation? Evidence from cities in China. Energy Policy 187: 114017.

Young, I. M. 2002. Inclusion and democracy . New York: Oxford University Press.

Book   Google Scholar  

Young, M. M. 2020. Implementation of digital-era governance: The case of open data in U.S. cities. Public Administration Review 80(2): 305–315.

Zhou, Q., M. Zhu, Y. Qiao, X. Zhang, and J. Chen. 2021. Achieving resilience through smart cities? Evidence from China. Habitat International 111: 102348.

Download references

This research was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (72074035); Basic Research Funds for the Central Universities of China (2020CDJSK01PY17 & 2022CDJSKPY12).

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

School of Public Policy and Administration, Chongqing University, Shapingba District, Chongqing, 400044, China

Rong Ran, Xiaoran Yang & Yejing Chen

School of Business, Shanghai University of Finance and Economics, Shanghai, China

Zhiyang Liu

School of Bussiness, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors contributed to the study’s conception and design. Conceptualization, writing—review and editing, Rong Ran and Xiaoran Yang; methodology and formal analysis, data curation and writing—original draft preparation and editing, Xiaoran Yang; data curation, investigation and project administration, Qiqi Wang, Zhiyang Liu and Yejing Chen.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Xiaoran Yang .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

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

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Ran, R., Yang, X., Liu, Z. et al. Does Digital Government Transformation Drive Social Inclusion? Evidence from Female Entrepreneurship in China?. J OF CHIN POLIT SCI (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11366-024-09899-x

Download citation

Accepted : 09 September 2024

Published : 17 September 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11366-024-09899-x

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Digital government transformation
• Female entrepreneurship
• Social inclusion
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research