What the review is for
The literature review shows that you know the field, can judge the quality of studies, can see patterns and conflicts among them and have identified a place where your study contributes. It is not a list of summaries. A review that proceeds author by author (Smith says, Jones says) reads as a catalog; a review organized by theme and argument reads as understanding.
| Descriptive review (weaker) | Critical, synthesized review (stronger) |
|---|---|
| Summarizes one article after another | Groups sources by theme, question or debate |
| Accepts every study as fact | Evaluates methods, samples and limits |
| Reports what authors found | Explains where studies agree, disagree and why |
| Ends without a point | Ends with the gap and the research question |
Search systematically
Plan a search you could explain and repeat. Record databases, keywords, dates and filters. Business databases commonly used include ABI/INFORM, Business Source Complete, EconLit, Scopus, Web of Science and Google Scholar, depending on your library access.
A search string (hypothetical topic: onboarding and retention)
("onboarding" OR "socialization" OR "orientation") AND ("retention" OR "turnover" OR "intention to stay") AND ("bank*" OR "financial services")
The OR joins synonyms; AND combines concepts; the asterisk catches word endings (bank, banks, banking). Record the number of results, then screen by title and abstract against inclusion rules such as peer-reviewed, English, published in the last 15 years or earlier if foundational.
| Stage | Action | Record |
|---|---|---|
| Search | Run strings in two to four databases | Strings, dates, hits |
| Screen | Read titles and abstracts against inclusion criteria | Number kept and excluded |
| Read | Read full text of the remaining sources | Notes, quality concerns |
| Snowball | Follow references and citations of key papers | New sources added |
Include the classic sources that define your concepts as well as recent studies, and look for review articles, which map the field quickly.
Build a synthesis matrix
A matrix turns notes into patterns. Each row is a source, and the columns are what you need to compare.
| Source | Context and sample | Method | Key finding | Limitation | Theme |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Author A (year) | 300 new hires, retail banks, one country | Survey, regression | Supervisor support predicts retention | Single country; self-report | Support |
| Author B (year) | 24 relationship managers, interviews | Qualitative | Early client contact builds commitment | Small sample | Role clarity |
| Author C (year) | 1,200 employees across sectors | Longitudinal survey | Effect of onboarding fades after 12 months | Not financial services | Onboarding |
Sort the matrix by theme, then read down each theme column. That is where you will see agreement (three studies find the same effect), conflict (two disagree), methods that dominate and groups or contexts that are missing.
Write by theme and argue as you go
Build each section around a claim, not an author. Use the topic sentence to state the point, the middle to show the evidence from several sources and the end to say what it means for your study.
Synthesis versus summary (hypothetical)
Summary: Author A found that supervisor support predicts retention. Author B found that early client contact builds commitment. Author C found the effect of onboarding fades.
Synthesis: Retention among new hires appears to depend on both relational and task factors. Supervisor support predicts intention to stay in large surveys (Author A), and early client contact builds commitment in qualitative accounts (Author B), but the effect of formal onboarding programs appears to fade after about twelve months (Author C). Few studies examine these factors together in financial services, and none in regional banks, which differ in size and hierarchy.
- One idea per paragraph With a claim, evidence from several sources and a link back.
- Use signal phrases of comparison In contrast, similarly, however, taken together.
- Evaluate quality Note sample size, method and context when it affects the weight of a study.
- Paraphrase and cite Avoid long quotations.
- Keep your voice Your argument should be clear and distinct from the sources.
Find and state the gap
The gap is a specific missing piece that you can fill. Common types follow.
| Gap type | Example |
|---|---|
| Population or context | Findings come from large banks; regional banks are unstudied |
| Method | Mostly surveys; few studies explore how managers experience onboarding |
| Conflict | Studies disagree on whether onboarding effects last |
| Time | Older studies; the context has changed since |
| Variable | Support and onboarding are studied separately, not together |
State the gap directly: Despite extensive research on turnover, little is known about how onboarding and supervisor support jointly shape early retention in regional banks. This study addresses that gap. Then connect it to your question and to the framework described in our guide to theoretical and conceptual frameworks.
Judging the quality of sources
| Source type | Typical weight | Cautions |
|---|---|---|
| Peer-reviewed journal articles | High | Check the journal's standing, sample and method |
| Books and handbooks from academic publishers | High for concepts and theory | May be dated; check editions |
| Working papers and conference papers | Medium | Not always reviewed; check for a published version |
| Industry and consulting reports | Medium for context | May be promotional; method often unclear |
| Government and professional body data | High for facts | Check definitions and dates |
| News and blogs | Low | Use for examples, not evidence |
For each key source, ask: is the sample suited to my context, is the method sound, are the claims proportionate to the evidence and who funded the work? A short note on these points in your matrix makes the critical commentary easy to write.
Working on this assignment now? Get a price for help with your paper.
Get an instant quoteWriting about disagreement
Conflict in the literature (hypothetical)
Studies disagree on whether formal onboarding improves long-term retention. Author C (year) finds the effect fades after about twelve months in a cross-sector panel, whereas Author D (year) reports lasting effects in a single hospital group. The difference may reflect context: hospitals have longer socialization periods and more structured early supervision, while the cross-sector sample includes many roles with little early structure. Neither study examines regional banks, which combine small teams with high client contact, so the question remains open in this setting.
The paragraph states the disagreement, offers a reasoned explanation and connects to the gap. That is more valuable than reporting each study separately.
Keep a search log
| Date | Database | Search string | Filters | Hits | Kept |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Week 2 | Business Source Complete | (onboarding OR socialization) AND (retention OR turnover) AND bank* | Peer-reviewed; 2008 onward | 312 | 38 |
| Week 2 | Scopus | Same, title and abstract | Business and management | 264 | 31 (14 new) |
| Week 3 | Citation chasing | References of five key papers | 11 new |
The log lets you repeat the search, shows rigor to examiners and helps you update the review before submission, since new studies appear while you write.
An outline for a 4,000-word review
| Section | Words | Purpose |
|---|---|---|
| Introduction to the review | 300 | Scope, search approach and structure |
| Concept and definitions | 600 | Define key terms and show how they are used in different studies |
| Theme 1: supervisor support | 800 | What is known, evidence, agreements and disagreements |
| Theme 2: onboarding | 800 | Same, with a view of how themes interact |
| Theme 3: context of regional banks | 600 | Why existing evidence may not transfer |
| Conceptual framework and hypotheses | 600 | Model derived from the themes |
| Summary and gap | 300 | The gap and the research question |
The review ends by arriving at the question, so a reader sees that the study follows logically from the literature.
Citing well
- Cite the original source for key claims Avoid relying on secondary summaries.
- Cite several sources for a pattern One study is an example, not a pattern.
- Report limits when they matter Small samples, one country, old data.
- Keep quotations rare Paraphrase and cite page numbers for exact wording.
- Check every reference is in the list And that dates and names match.
Common mistakes
- Writing author by author Reorganize by theme.
- No search strategy Report how you searched and screened.
- Too many weak sources Prefer peer-reviewed, recent and foundational works.
- No critical judgment Evaluate methods and limits.
- No gap End with what the review shows is missing.
For help with a literature review, you can order PhD management dissertation help or graduate research paper help.