define literature review skills

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

What is a literature review?

A literature review is a critical analysis of the literature related to your research topic. It evaluates and critiques the literature to establish a theoretical framework for your research topic and/or identify a gap in the existing research that your research will address.

A literature review is not a summary of the literature. You need to engage deeply and critically with the literature. Your literature review should show your understanding of the literature related to your research topic and lead to presenting a rationale for your research.

A literature review focuses on:

• the context of the topic
• key concepts, ideas, theories and methodologies
• key researchers, texts and seminal works
• major issues and debates
• identifying conflicting evidence
• the main questions that have been asked around the topic
• the organisation of knowledge on the topic
• definitions, particularly those that are contested
• showing how your research will advance scholarly knowledge (generally referred to as identifying the ‘gap’).

This module will guide you through the functions of a literature review; the typical process of conducting a literature review (including searching for literature and taking notes); structuring your literature review within your thesis and organising its internal ideas; and styling the language of your literature review.

The purposes of a literature review

A literature review serves two main purposes:

1) To show awareness of the present state of knowledge in a particular field, including:

• seminal authors
• the main empirical research
• theoretical positions
• controversies
• breakthroughs as well as links to other related areas of knowledge.

2) To provide a foundation for the author’s research. To do that, the literature review needs to:

• help the researcher define a hypothesis or a research question, and how answering the question will contribute to the body of knowledge;
• provide a rationale for investigating the problem and the selected methodology;
• provide a particular theoretical lens, support the argument, or identify gaps.

Before you engage further with this module, try the quiz below to see how much you already know about literature reviews.

Research and Writing Skills for Academic and Graduate Researchers Copyright © 2022 by RMIT University is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

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

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

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

Table of Contents

• What is the purpose of literature review? 
• a. Habitat Loss and Species Extinction: 
• b. Range Shifts and Phenological Changes: 
• c. Ocean Acidification and Coral Reefs: 
• d. Adaptive Strategies and Conservation Efforts: 

How to write a good literature review 

• Choose a Topic and Define the Research Question: 
• Decide on the Scope of Your Review: 
• Select Databases for Searches: 
• Conduct Searches and Keep Track: 
• Review the Literature: 
• Organize and Write Your Literature Review: 
• How to write a literature review faster with Paperpal? 
• Frequently asked questions 

What is a literature review?

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

What is the purpose of literature review?

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

1. Contextualizing the Research Problem: The literature review provides a background and context for the research problem under investigation. It helps to situate the study within the existing body of knowledge. 

2. Identifying Gaps in Knowledge: By identifying gaps, contradictions, or areas requiring further research, the researcher can shape the research question and justify the significance of the study. This is crucial for ensuring that the new research contributes something novel to the field. 

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

3. Understanding Theoretical and Conceptual Frameworks: Literature reviews help researchers gain an understanding of the theoretical and conceptual frameworks used in previous studies. This aids in the development of a theoretical framework for the current research. 

4. Providing Methodological Insights: Another purpose of literature reviews is that it allows researchers to learn about the methodologies employed in previous studies. This can help in choosing appropriate research methods for the current study and avoiding pitfalls that others may have encountered. 

5. Establishing Credibility: A well-conducted literature review demonstrates the researcher’s familiarity with existing scholarship, establishing their credibility and expertise in the field. It also helps in building a solid foundation for the new research. 

6. Informing Hypotheses or Research Questions: The literature review guides the formulation of hypotheses or research questions by highlighting relevant findings and areas of uncertainty in existing literature. 

Literature review example

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

Literature Review on Climate Change Impacts on Biodiversity:

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

a. Habitat Loss and Species Extinction:

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

b. Range Shifts and Phenological Changes:

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

c. Ocean Acidification and Coral Reefs:

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

d. Adaptive Strategies and Conservation Efforts:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conducting a literature review

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

Choose a Topic and Define the Research Question:

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

Decide on the Scope of Your Review:

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

Select Databases for Searches:

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

Conduct Searches and Keep Track:

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

Review the Literature:

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

Organize and Write Your Literature Review:

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

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

How to write a literature review faster with Paperpal?

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

Here’s how to use the Research feature:  

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

The literature review sample and detailed advice on writing and conducting a review will help you produce a well-structured report. But remember that a good literature review is an ongoing process, and it may be necessary to revisit and update it as your research progresses. By combining effortless research with an easy citation process, Paperpal Research streamlines the literature review process and empowers you to write faster and with more confidence. Try Paperpal Research now and see for yourself.  

Frequently asked questions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References 

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

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

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

Related Reads:

• Empirical Research: A Comprehensive Guide for Academics 
• How to Write a Scientific Paper in 10 Steps 
• How Long Should a Chapter Be?
• How to Use Paperpal to Generate Emails & Cover Letters?

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

Self-plagiarism in research: what it is and how to avoid it, you may also like, how to write a high-quality conference paper, how paperpal’s research feature helps you develop and..., how paperpal is enhancing academic productivity and accelerating..., how to write a successful book chapter for..., academic editing: how to self-edit academic text with..., 4 ways paperpal encourages responsible writing with ai, what are scholarly sources and where can you..., how to write a hypothesis types and examples , measuring academic success: definition & strategies for excellence, what is academic writing: tips for students.

Have a language expert improve your writing

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

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

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

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

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

There are five key steps to writing a literature review:

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

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

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

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

Table of contents

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

• Quick Run-through
• Step 1 & 2

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

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

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

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

Prevent plagiarism, run a free check.

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

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

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

Download Word doc Download Google doc

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

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

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

Make a list of keywords

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

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

Search for relevant sources

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

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

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

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

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

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

For each publication, ask yourself:

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

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

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

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

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

Take notes and cite your sources

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chronological

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

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

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

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

Methodological

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

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

Theoretical

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

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

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

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

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

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

As you write, make sure to follow these tips:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cite this Scribbr article

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

McCombes, S. (2022, June 07). What is a Literature Review? | Guide, Template, & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved 21 May 2024, from https://www.scribbr.co.uk/thesis-dissertation/literature-review/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

Other students also liked, how to write a dissertation proposal | a step-by-step guide, what is a theoretical framework | a step-by-step guide, what is a research methodology | steps & tips.

Literature Review & Research Skills Guide: What is a Literature Review?

• Introduction
• What is a Literature Review?
• Your research topic
• Topic Analysis
• Developing a Search Strategy
• Preliminary Reading
• Use Primo Search
• Use Google Scholar
• Use Journal Databases
• Sage Research Methods
• Managing your literature review
• Evaluation & Critical Appraisal
• Referencing

What is a literature review

Once you have defined your topic, the next step is to start a literature review. A literature review summarises, interprets and critically evaluates material that has already been published on a topic. The purpose is to establish current knowledge of a subject, identify gaps, inconsistencies and relations in the literature as well as outline areas for additional research and/or define a topic of inquiry.

Adopted from Charles Sturt University Library. (2017). Literature review.  Retrieved from http://libguides.csu.edu.au/review

Types of literature reviews

The type of literature review you write will depend on your discipline and whether you are a researcher writing your PhD, publishing a study in a journal or completing an assessment task in your undergraduate study.

A literature review for a subject in an undergraduate degree will not be as comprehensive as the literature review required for a PhD thesis.

An undergraduate literature review may be in the form of an annotated bibliography or a narrative review of a small selection of literature, for example ten relevant articles. If you are asked to write a literature review, and you are an undergraduate student, be guided by your subject coordinator or lecturer.

Often the term "review" and "literature" can be confusing and used in the wrong context. Grant and Booth (2009) attempt to clear up this confusion by discussing 14 review types and the associated methodology, and advantages and disadvantages associated with each review.   For research students, especially those in EEB501, ERP502 or doctoral students, they will be undertaking a critical literature review.

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

What is the purpose or aim of the literature review?

A literature review should demonstrate your knowledge of the research that has been conducted in the past and should place your research in the context of this work. A literature review can have a number of purposes within a research project. These include:

• demonstrating and clarify your understanding of your field of research;
• identifying patterns and trends in the literature;
• identifying gaps in the literature and seek new lines of inquiry;
• identifying similarities and differences in previous research and place your work in perspective;
• justifying your own research;
• increasing your breadth of knowledge of your subject area;
• identifying seminal and influential published works in your field;
• identifying relevant journals, publishers and conferences to search;
• providing the intellectual context for your own work, enabling you to position your project relative to other work;
• identifying experts working in your field (a researcher network is a valuable resource);
• carrying on from where others have already reached.

Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Frels, R. (2016). 7 steps to a comprehensive literature review : a multimodal & cultural approach . London : Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications.

Randolph, J. J. (2009).  A guide to writing the dissertation literature review . Practical Assessment Research & Evaluation. 14 (Article 13), 1-13.

An Introduction to Literature Reviews

Please watch the following video:

where to start a literature review

There are many different types of resources which might offer information on the topic you are researching, but you need to consider whether the source is scholarly or authoritative enough for a literature review. Typically literature reviews are conducted by using journal articles, conference papers, book chapters, websites or standards.  

In addition, there is a range of new information sources that you may not have come across before, such as: 

• Internet resources
• Tracking citation
• Using Social Media
• Interlibrary loans

To keep your information organised, you might like to consider using a reference manager.  There are a number of different reference managers available to use, and they all have their own advantages and disadvantages. See the EndNote tab   to find further information on Charles Sturt University's bibliographic management software EndNote.

• << Previous: Introduction
• Next: Your research topic >>
• Last Updated: May 12, 2024 12:45 PM
• URL: https://libguides.csu.edu.au/education-research

Charles Sturt University is an Australian University, TEQSA Provider Identification: PRV12018. CRICOS Provider: 00005F.

Libraries | Research Guides

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

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

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

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

• Next: Planning the Review >>
• Last Updated: May 2, 2024 10:39 AM
• URL: https://libguides.northwestern.edu/literaturereviews

• USC Libraries
• Research Guides

Organizing Your Social Sciences Research Paper

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

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

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

Importance of a Good Literature Review

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

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

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

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

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

Types of Literature Reviews

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Structure and Writing Style

I.  Thinking About Your Literature Review

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

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

The critical evaluation of each work should consider :

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

II.  Development of the Literature Review

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

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

III.  Ways to Organize Your Literature Review

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

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

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

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

IV.  Writing Your Literature Review

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

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

V.  Common Mistakes to Avoid

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

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

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

Writing Tip

Break Out of Your Disciplinary Box!

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

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

Another Writing Tip

Don't Just Review for Content!

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

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

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

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

Yet Another Writing Tip

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

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

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

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

• << Previous: Theoretical Framework
• Next: Citation Tracking >>
• Last Updated: May 21, 2024 11:14 AM
• URL: https://libguides.usc.edu/writingguide

• Schools & departments

Literature review

A general guide on how to conduct and write a literature review.

Please check course or programme information and materials provided by teaching staff, including your project supervisor, for subject-specific guidance.

What is a literature review?

A literature review is a piece of academic writing demonstrating knowledge and understanding of the academic literature on a specific topic placed in context.  A literature review also includes a critical evaluation of the material; this is why it is called a literature review rather than a literature report. It is a process of reviewing the literature, as well as a form of writing.

To illustrate the difference between reporting and reviewing, think about television or film review articles.  These articles include content such as a brief synopsis or the key points of the film or programme plus the critic’s own evaluation.  Similarly the two main objectives of a literature review are firstly the content covering existing research, theories and evidence, and secondly your own critical evaluation and discussion of this content. 

Usually a literature review forms a section or part of a dissertation, research project or long essay.  However, it can also be set and assessed as a standalone piece of work.

What is the purpose of a literature review?

…your task is to build an argument, not a library. Rudestam, K.E. and Newton, R.R. (1992) Surviving your dissertation: A comprehensive guide to content and process. California: Sage, p49.

In a larger piece of written work, such as a dissertation or project, a literature review is usually one of the first tasks carried out after deciding on a topic.  Reading combined with critical analysis can help to refine a topic and frame research questions.  Conducting a literature review establishes your familiarity with and understanding of current research in a particular field before carrying out a new investigation. After doing a literature review, you should know what research has already been done and be able to identify what is unknown within your topic.

When doing and writing a literature review, it is good practice to:

• summarise and analyse previous research and theories;
• identify areas of controversy and contested claims;
• highlight any gaps that may exist in research to date.

Conducting a literature review

Focusing on different aspects of your literature review can be useful to help plan, develop, refine and write it.  You can use and adapt the prompt questions in our worksheet below at different points in the process of researching and writing your review.  These are suggestions to get you thinking and writing.

Developing and refining your literature review (pdf)

Developing and refining your literature review (Word)

Developing and refining your literature review (Word rtf)

Writing a literature review has a lot in common with other assignment tasks.  There is advice on our other pages about thinking critically, reading strategies and academic writing.  Our literature review top tips suggest some specific things you can do to help you submit a successful review.

Literature review top tips (pdf)

Literature review top tips (Word rtf)

Our reading page includes strategies and advice on using books and articles and a notes record sheet grid you can use.

Reading at university

The Academic writing page suggests ways to organise and structure information from a range of sources and how you can develop your argument as you read and write.

Academic writing

The Critical thinking page has advice on how to be a more critical researcher and a form you can use to help you think and break down the stages of developing your argument.

Critical thinking

As with other forms of academic writing, your literature review needs to demonstrate good academic practice by following the Code of Student Conduct and acknowledging the work of others through citing and referencing your sources.  

Good academic practice

As with any writing task, you will need to review, edit and rewrite sections of your literature review.  The Editing and proofreading page includes tips on how to do this and strategies for standing back and thinking about your structure and checking the flow of your argument.

Editing and proofreading

Guidance on literature searching from the University Library

The Academic Support Librarians have developed LibSmart I and II, Learn courses to help you develop and enhance your digital research skills and capabilities; from getting started with the Library to managing data for your dissertation.

Searching using the library’s DiscoverEd tool: DiscoverEd

Finding resources in your subject: Subject guides

The Academic Support Librarians also provide one-to-one appointments to help you develop your research strategies.

1 to 1 support for literature searching and systematic reviews

Advice to help you optimise use of Google Scholar, Google Books and Google for your research and study: Using Google

Managing and curating your references

A referencing management tool can help you to collect and organise and your source material to produce a bibliography or reference list. 

Referencing and reference management

Information Services provide access to Cite them right online which is a guide to the main referencing systems and tells you how to reference just about any source (EASE log-in may be required).

Cite them right

Published study guides

There are a number of scholarship skills books and guides available which can help with writing a literature review.  Our Resource List of study skills guides includes sections on Referencing, Dissertation and project writing and Literature reviews.

Study skills guides

This article was published on 2024-02-26

• University of Texas Libraries

Literature Reviews

Steps in the literature review process.

• What is a literature review?
• Define your research question
• Determine inclusion and exclusion criteria
• Choose databases and search
• Review Results
• Synthesize Results
• Analyze Results
• Librarian Support
• You may need to some exploratory searching of the literature to get a sense of scope, to determine whether you need to narrow or broaden your focus
• Identify databases that provide the most relevant sources, and identify relevant terms (controlled vocabularies) to add to your search strategy
• Finalize your research question
• Think about relevant dates, geographies (and languages), methods, and conflicting points of view
• Conduct searches in the published literature via the identified databases
• Check to see if this topic has been covered in other discipline's databases
• Examine the citations of on-point articles for keywords, authors, and previous research (via references) and cited reference searching.
• Save your search results in a citation management tool (such as Zotero, Mendeley or EndNote)
• De-duplicate your search results
• Make sure that you've found the seminal pieces -- they have been cited many times, and their work is considered foundational 
• Check with your professor or a librarian to make sure your search has been comprehensive
• Evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of individual sources and evaluate for bias, methodologies, and thoroughness
• Group your results in to an organizational structure that will support why your research needs to be done, or that provides the answer to your research question  
• Develop your conclusions
• Are there gaps in the literature?
• Where has significant research taken place, and who has done it?
• Is there consensus or debate on this topic?
• Which methodological approaches work best?
• For example: Background, Current Practices, Critics and Proponents, Where/How this study will fit in 
• Organize your citations and focus on your research question and pertinent studies
• Compile your bibliography

Note: The first four steps are the best points at which to contact a librarian. Your librarian can help you determine the best databases to use for your topic, assess scope, and formulate a search strategy.

Videos Tutorials about Literature Reviews

This 4.5 minute video from Academic Education Materials has a Creative Commons License and a British narrator.

Recommended Reading

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

Harvey Cushing/John Hay Whitney Medical Library

• Collections
• Research Help

YSN Doctoral Programs: Steps in Conducting a Literature Review

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

What is a literature review?

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

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

Why is it important?

A literature review is important because it:

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

APA7 Style resources

APA Style Blog - for those harder to find answers

1. Choose a topic. Define your research question.

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

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

2. Decide on the scope of your review

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

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

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

Make a list of the databases you will search. 

Where to find databases:

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

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

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

Review the literature

Some questions to help you analyze the research:

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

Tips: 

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

News alert: UC Berkeley has announced its next university librarian

Secondary menu

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

Search form

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

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

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

You identify:

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

It Also Helps You:

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

Great brief overview, from NCSU

Want To Know More?

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

Independent Study – Skills Guide

• Formulating the Research Question
• Introduction and Rationale of the Study

Literature Review

• Research Methodology
• Research Design
• Ethical Considerations
• Data Findings
• Data Analysis
• Conclusions

A literature review identifies the boundaries of your study and demonstrates very clearly the focus and purpose of your research.

A literature review is an account of what has been published on a topic by accredited scholars and researchers. Occasionally you will be asked to write one as a separate assignment but more often it is part of the introduction to an essay, research report, or thesis. 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 aim). It is not just a descriptive list of the material available, or a set of summaries. 

Besides enlarging your knowledge about the topic, writing a literature review lets you gain and demonstrate skills in two areas: 

• information seeking: the ability to scan the literature efficiently, using manual or computerised methods, to identify a set of useful journals and books 
• critical appraisal: the ability to apply principles of analysis to identify unbiased and valid studies. 

This will be one of the longer sections of the dissertation and will contain a critical review of your reading in books and journals. Learning Resource staff will help you if necessary to use indexes and abstracts in order to secure relevant sources for your work.

The literature reviewed should be  closely  related to the focus of your study. You should use sub-headings which identify the key issues. This will help you to summarise and synthesise your readings in a structured way.

Ensure that from the start of your work, you keep detailed, accurate notes of all your reading, ensuring that you also note relevant bibliographic data, including: page numbers; author(s); titles; date and place of publication etc.

• An extract from a study based on Explore Wellbeing and Mental Health upon Student Achievement Within Higher Education
• An extract from a study based on Vygotskian theory reflected in classroom practice.pdf

Additional Resources

Purpose of the Literature Review

• << Previous: Introduction and Rationale of the Study
• Next: Research Methodology >>
• Last Updated: Sep 9, 2022 9:55 AM
• URL: https://libguides.derby.ac.uk/independent

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

The objective of a literature review

Questions to Consider

B. In some fields or contexts, a literature review is referred to as the introduction or the background; why is this true, and does it matter?

The elements of a literature review • The first step in scholarly research is determining the “state of the art” on a topic. This is accomplished by gathering academic research and making sense of it. • The academic literature can be found in scholarly books and journals; the goal is to discover recurring themes, find the latest data, and identify any missing pieces. • The resulting literature review organizes the research in such a way that tells a story about the topic or issue.

The literature review tells a story in which one well-paraphrased summary from a relevant source contributes to and connects with the next in a logical manner, developing and fulfilling the message of the author. It includes analysis of the arguments from the literature, as well as revealing consistent and inconsistent findings. How do varying author insights differ from or conform to previous arguments?

Language in Action

A. How are the terms “critique” and “review” used in everyday life? How are they used in an academic context?

In terms of content, a literature review is intended to:

• Set up a theoretical framework for further research • Show a clear understanding of the key concepts/studies/models related to the topic • Demonstrate knowledge about the history of the research area and any related controversies • Clarify significant definitions and terminology • Develop a space in the existing work for new research

The literature consists of the published works that document a scholarly conversation or progression on a problem or topic in a field of study. Among these are documents that explain the background and show the loose ends in the established research on which a proposed project is based. Although a literature review focuses on primary, peer -reviewed resources, it may begin with background subject information generally found in secondary and tertiary sources such as books and encyclopedias. Following that essential overview, the seminal literature of the field is explored. As a result, while a literature review may consist of research articles tightly focused on a topic with secondary and tertiary sources used more sparingly, all three types of information (primary, secondary, tertiary) are critical.

The literature review, often referred to as the Background or Introduction to a research paper that presents methods, materials, results and discussion, exists in every field and serves many functions in research writing.

Adapted from Frederiksen, L., & Phelps, S. F. (2017). Literature Reviews for Education and Nursing Graduate Students. Open Textbook Library

Review and Reinforce

Two common approaches are simply outlined here. Which seems more common? Which more productive? Why? A. Forward exploration 1. Sources on a topic or problem are gathered. 2. Salient themes are discovered. 3. Research gaps are considered for future research. B. Backward exploration 1. Sources pertaining to an existing research project are gathered. 2. The justification of the research project’s methods or materials are explained and supported based on previously documented research.

Media Attributions

• 2589960988_3eeca91ba4_o © Untitled blue is licensed under a CC BY (Attribution) license

Sourcing, summarizing, and synthesizing:  Skills for effective research writing  Copyright © 2023 by Wendy L. McBride is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

• Link to facebook
• Link to linkedin
• Link to twitter
• Link to youtube
• Writing Tips

What is the Purpose of a Literature Review?

4-minute read

• 23rd October 2023

If you’re writing a research paper or dissertation , then you’ll most likely need to include a comprehensive literature review . In this post, we’ll review the purpose of literature reviews, why they are so significant, and the specific elements to include in one. Literature reviews can:

1. Provide a foundation for current research.

2. Define key concepts and theories.

3. Demonstrate critical evaluation.

4. Show how research and methodologies have evolved.

5. Identify gaps in existing research.

6. Support your argument.

Keep reading to enter the exciting world of literature reviews!

What is a Literature Review?

A literature review is a critical summary and evaluation of the existing research (e.g., academic journal articles and books) on a specific topic. It is typically included as a separate section or chapter of a research paper or dissertation, serving as a contextual framework for a study. Literature reviews can vary in length depending on the subject and nature of the study, with most being about equal length to other sections or chapters included in the paper. Essentially, the literature review highlights previous studies in the context of your research and summarizes your insights in a structured, organized format. Next, let’s look at the overall purpose of a literature review.

Find this useful?

Subscribe to our newsletter and get writing tips from our editors straight to your inbox.

Literature reviews are considered an integral part of research across most academic subjects and fields. The primary purpose of a literature review in your study is to:

Provide a Foundation for Current Research

Since the literature review provides a comprehensive evaluation of the existing research, it serves as a solid foundation for your current study. It’s a way to contextualize your work and show how your research fits into the broader landscape of your specific area of study.  

Define Key Concepts and Theories

The literature review highlights the central theories and concepts that have arisen from previous research on your chosen topic. It gives your readers a more thorough understanding of the background of your study and why your research is particularly significant .

Demonstrate Critical Evaluation 

A comprehensive literature review shows your ability to critically analyze and evaluate a broad range of source material. And since you’re considering and acknowledging the contribution of key scholars alongside your own, it establishes your own credibility and knowledge.

Show How Research and Methodologies Have Evolved

Another purpose of literature reviews is to provide a historical perspective and demonstrate how research and methodologies have changed over time, especially as data collection methods and technology have advanced. And studying past methodologies allows you, as the researcher, to understand what did and did not work and apply that knowledge to your own research.  

Identify Gaps in Existing Research

Besides discussing current research and methodologies, the literature review should also address areas that are lacking in the existing literature. This helps further demonstrate the relevance of your own research by explaining why your study is necessary to fill the gaps.

Support Your Argument

A good literature review should provide evidence that supports your research questions and hypothesis. For example, your study may show that your research supports existing theories or builds on them in some way. Referencing previous related studies shows your work is grounded in established research and will ultimately be a contribution to the field.  

Literature Review Editing Services 

Ensure your literature review is polished and ready for submission by having it professionally proofread and edited by our expert team. Our literature review editing services will help your research stand out and make an impact. Not convinced yet? Send in your free sample today and see for yourself! 

Share this article:

Post A New Comment

Got content that needs a quick turnaround? Let us polish your work. Explore our editorial business services.

9-minute read

How to Use Infographics to Boost Your Presentation

Is your content getting noticed? Capturing and maintaining an audience’s attention is a challenge when...

8-minute read

Why Interactive PDFs Are Better for Engagement

Are you looking to enhance engagement and captivate your audience through your professional documents? Interactive...

7-minute read

Seven Key Strategies for Voice Search Optimization

Voice search optimization is rapidly shaping the digital landscape, requiring content professionals to adapt their...

Five Creative Ways to Showcase Your Digital Portfolio

Are you a creative freelancer looking to make a lasting impression on potential clients or...

How to Ace Slack Messaging for Contractors and Freelancers

Effective professional communication is an important skill for contractors and freelancers navigating remote work environments....

3-minute read

How to Insert a Text Box in a Google Doc

Google Docs is a powerful collaborative tool, and mastering its features can significantly enhance your...

Make sure your writing is the best it can be with our expert English proofreading and editing.

• Library databases
• Library website

Library Guide to Capstone Literature Reviews: Role of the Literature Review

The role of the literature review.

Your literature review gives readers an understanding of the scholarly research on your topic.

In your literature review you will:

• demonstrate that you are a well-informed scholar with expertise and knowledge in the field by giving an overview of the current state of the literature
• find a gap in the literature, or address a business or professional issue, depending on your doctoral study program; the literature review will illustrate how your research contributes to the scholarly conversation
• provide a synthesis of the issues, trends, and concepts surrounding your research

Be aware that the literature review is an iterative process. As you read and write initial drafts, you will find new threads and complementary themes, at which point you will return to search, find out about these new themes, and incorporate them into your review.

The purpose of this guide is to help you through the literature review process. Take some time to look over the resources in order to become familiar with them. The tabs on the left side of this page have additional information.

Short video: Research for the Literature Review

Short Video: Research for the Literature Review

(4 min 10 sec) Recorded August 2019 Transcript 

Literature review as a dinner party

To think about the role of the literature review, consider this analogy:  pretend that you throw a dinner party for the other researchers working in your topic area. First, you’d need to develop a guest list.

• The guests of honor would be early researchers or theorists; their work likely inspired subsequent studies, ideas, or controversies that the current researchers pursue.
• Then, think about the important current researchers to invite. Which guests might agree with each other?  Which others might provide useful counterpoints?
• You likely won’t be able to include everyone on the guest list, so you may need to choose carefully so that you don’t leave important figures out. 
• Alternatively, if there aren’t many researchers working in your topic area, then your guest list will need to include people working in other, related areas, who can still contribute to the conversation.

After the party, you describe the evening to a friend. You’ll summarize the evening’s conversation. Perhaps one guest made a comment that sparked a conversation, and then you describe who responded and how the topic evolved. There are other conversations to share, too. This is how you synthesize the themes and developments that you find in your research. Thinking about your literature research this way will help you to present your dinner party (and your literature review) in a lively and engaging way.

Short video: Empirical research

Video: How to locate and identify empirical research for your literature review

(6 min 16 sec) Recorded May 2020 Transcript 

Here are some useful resources from the Writing Center, the Office of Research and Doctoral Services, and other departments within the Office of Academic Support. Take some time to look at what is available to help you with your capstone/dissertation.

• Familiarize yourself with Walden support
• Doctoral Capstone Resources website
• Capstone writing resources
• Office of Student Research Administration
• Office of Research and Doctoral Services
• Visit the Writing Center

You can watch recorded webinars on the literature review in our Library Webinar Archives .

• Next Page: Scope
• Office of Student Disability Services

Walden Resources

Departments.

• Academic Residencies
• Academic Skills
• Career Planning and Development
• Customer Care Team
• Field Experience
• Military Services
• Student Success Advising
• Writing Skills

Centers and Offices

• Center for Social Change
• Office of Academic Support and Instructional Services
• Office of Degree Acceleration
• Office of Student Affairs

Student Resources

• Doctoral Writing Assessment
• Form & Style Review
• Quick Answers
• ScholarWorks
• SKIL Courses and Workshops
• Walden Bookstore
• Walden Catalog & Student Handbook
• Student Safety/Title IX
• Legal & Consumer Information
• Website Terms and Conditions
• Cookie Policy
• Accessibility
• Accreditation
• State Authorization
• Net Price Calculator
• Contact Walden

Walden University is a member of Adtalem Global Education, Inc. www.adtalem.com Walden University is certified to operate by SCHEV © 2024 Walden University LLC. All rights reserved.

An official website of the United States government

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

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

• Publications
• Account settings

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

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Clinics (Sao Paulo)

Approaching literature review for academic purposes: The Literature Review Checklist

Debora f.b. leite.

I Departamento de Ginecologia e Obstetricia, Faculdade de Ciencias Medicas, Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Campinas, SP, BR

II Universidade Federal de Pernambuco, Pernambuco, PE, BR

III Hospital das Clinicas, Universidade Federal de Pernambuco, Pernambuco, PE, BR

Maria Auxiliadora Soares Padilha

Jose g. cecatti.

A sophisticated literature review (LR) can result in a robust dissertation/thesis by scrutinizing the main problem examined by the academic study; anticipating research hypotheses, methods and results; and maintaining the interest of the audience in how the dissertation/thesis will provide solutions for the current gaps in a particular field. Unfortunately, little guidance is available on elaborating LRs, and writing an LR chapter is not a linear process. An LR translates students’ abilities in information literacy, the language domain, and critical writing. Students in postgraduate programs should be systematically trained in these skills. Therefore, this paper discusses the purposes of LRs in dissertations and theses. Second, the paper considers five steps for developing a review: defining the main topic, searching the literature, analyzing the results, writing the review and reflecting on the writing. Ultimately, this study proposes a twelve-item LR checklist. By clearly stating the desired achievements, this checklist allows Masters and Ph.D. students to continuously assess their own progress in elaborating an LR. Institutions aiming to strengthen students’ necessary skills in critical academic writing should also use this tool.

INTRODUCTION

Writing the literature review (LR) is often viewed as a difficult task that can be a point of writer’s block and procrastination ( 1 ) in postgraduate life. Disagreements on the definitions or classifications of LRs ( 2 ) may confuse students about their purpose and scope, as well as how to perform an LR. Interestingly, at many universities, the LR is still an important element in any academic work, despite the more recent trend of producing scientific articles rather than classical theses.

The LR is not an isolated section of the thesis/dissertation or a copy of the background section of a research proposal. It identifies the state-of-the-art knowledge in a particular field, clarifies information that is already known, elucidates implications of the problem being analyzed, links theory and practice ( 3 - 5 ), highlights gaps in the current literature, and places the dissertation/thesis within the research agenda of that field. Additionally, by writing the LR, postgraduate students will comprehend the structure of the subject and elaborate on their cognitive connections ( 3 ) while analyzing and synthesizing data with increasing maturity.

At the same time, the LR transforms the student and hints at the contents of other chapters for the reader. First, the LR explains the research question; second, it supports the hypothesis, objectives, and methods of the research project; and finally, it facilitates a description of the student’s interpretation of the results and his/her conclusions. For scholars, the LR is an introductory chapter ( 6 ). If it is well written, it demonstrates the student’s understanding of and maturity in a particular topic. A sound and sophisticated LR can indicate a robust dissertation/thesis.

A consensus on the best method to elaborate a dissertation/thesis has not been achieved. The LR can be a distinct chapter or included in different sections; it can be part of the introduction chapter, part of each research topic, or part of each published paper ( 7 ). However, scholars view the LR as an integral part of the main body of an academic work because it is intrinsically connected to other sections ( Figure 1 ) and is frequently present. The structure of the LR depends on the conventions of a particular discipline, the rules of the department, and the student’s and supervisor’s areas of expertise, needs and interests.

Interestingly, many postgraduate students choose to submit their LR to peer-reviewed journals. As LRs are critical evaluations of current knowledge, they are indeed publishable material, even in the form of narrative or systematic reviews. However, systematic reviews have specific patterns 1 ( 8 ) that may not entirely fit with the questions posed in the dissertation/thesis. Additionally, the scope of a systematic review may be too narrow, and the strict criteria for study inclusion may omit important information from the dissertation/thesis. Therefore, this essay discusses the definition of an LR is and methods to develop an LR in the context of an academic dissertation/thesis. Finally, we suggest a checklist to evaluate an LR.

WHAT IS A LITERATURE REVIEW IN A THESIS?

Conducting research and writing a dissertation/thesis translates rational thinking and enthusiasm ( 9 ). While a strong body of literature that instructs students on research methodology, data analysis and writing scientific papers exists, little guidance on performing LRs is available. The LR is a unique opportunity to assess and contrast various arguments and theories, not just summarize them. The research results should not be discussed within the LR, but the postgraduate student tends to write a comprehensive LR while reflecting on his or her own findings ( 10 ).

Many people believe that writing an LR is a lonely and linear process. Supervisors or the institutions assume that the Ph.D. student has mastered the relevant techniques and vocabulary associated with his/her subject and conducts a self-reflection about previously published findings. Indeed, while elaborating the LR, the student should aggregate diverse skills, which mainly rely on his/her own commitment to mastering them. Thus, less supervision should be required ( 11 ). However, the parameters described above might not currently be the case for many students ( 11 , 12 ), and the lack of formal and systematic training on writing LRs is an important concern ( 11 ).

An institutional environment devoted to active learning will provide students the opportunity to continuously reflect on LRs, which will form a dialogue between the postgraduate student and the current literature in a particular field ( 13 ). Postgraduate students will be interpreting studies by other researchers, and, according to Hart (1998) ( 3 ), the outcomes of the LR in a dissertation/thesis include the following:

• To identify what research has been performed and what topics require further investigation in a particular field of knowledge;
• To determine the context of the problem;
• To recognize the main methodologies and techniques that have been used in the past;
• To place the current research project within the historical, methodological and theoretical context of a particular field;
• To identify significant aspects of the topic;
• To elucidate the implications of the topic;
• To offer an alternative perspective;
• To discern how the studied subject is structured;
• To improve the student’s subject vocabulary in a particular field; and
• To characterize the links between theory and practice.

A sound LR translates the postgraduate student’s expertise in academic and scientific writing: it expresses his/her level of comfort with synthesizing ideas ( 11 ). The LR reveals how well the postgraduate student has proceeded in three domains: an effective literature search, the language domain, and critical writing.

Effective literature search

All students should be trained in gathering appropriate data for specific purposes, and information literacy skills are a cornerstone. These skills are defined as “an individual’s ability to know when they need information, to identify information that can help them address the issue or problem at hand, and to locate, evaluate, and use that information effectively” ( 14 ). Librarian support is of vital importance in coaching the appropriate use of Boolean logic (AND, OR, NOT) and other tools for highly efficient literature searches (e.g., quotation marks and truncation), as is the appropriate management of electronic databases.

Language domain

Academic writing must be concise and precise: unnecessary words distract the reader from the essential content ( 15 ). In this context, reading about issues distant from the research topic ( 16 ) may increase students’ general vocabulary and familiarity with grammar. Ultimately, reading diverse materials facilitates and encourages the writing process itself.

Critical writing

Critical judgment includes critical reading, thinking and writing. It supposes a student’s analytical reflection about what he/she has read. The student should delineate the basic elements of the topic, characterize the most relevant claims, identify relationships, and finally contrast those relationships ( 17 ). Each scientific document highlights the perspective of the author, and students will become more confident in judging the supporting evidence and underlying premises of a study and constructing their own counterargument as they read more articles. A paucity of integration or contradictory perspectives indicates lower levels of cognitive complexity ( 12 ).

Thus, while elaborating an LR, the postgraduate student should achieve the highest category of Bloom’s cognitive skills: evaluation ( 12 ). The writer should not only summarize data and understand each topic but also be able to make judgments based on objective criteria, compare resources and findings, identify discrepancies due to methodology, and construct his/her own argument ( 12 ). As a result, the student will be sufficiently confident to show his/her own voice .

Writing a consistent LR is an intense and complex activity that reveals the training and long-lasting academic skills of a writer. It is not a lonely or linear process. However, students are unlikely to be prepared to write an LR if they have not mastered the aforementioned domains ( 10 ). An institutional environment that supports student learning is crucial.

Different institutions employ distinct methods to promote students’ learning processes. First, many universities propose modules to develop behind the scenes activities that enhance self-reflection about general skills (e.g., the skills we have mastered and the skills we need to develop further), behaviors that should be incorporated (e.g., self-criticism about one’s own thoughts), and each student’s role in the advancement of his/her field. Lectures or workshops about LRs themselves are useful because they describe the purposes of the LR and how it fits into the whole picture of a student’s work. These activities may explain what type of discussion an LR must involve, the importance of defining the correct scope, the reasons to include a particular resource, and the main role of critical reading.

Some pedagogic services that promote a continuous improvement in study and academic skills are equally important. Examples include workshops about time management, the accomplishment of personal objectives, active learning, and foreign languages for nonnative speakers. Additionally, opportunities to converse with other students promotes an awareness of others’ experiences and difficulties. Ultimately, the supervisor’s role in providing feedback and setting deadlines is crucial in developing students’ abilities and in strengthening students’ writing quality ( 12 ).

HOW SHOULD A LITERATURE REVIEW BE DEVELOPED?

A consensus on the appropriate method for elaborating an LR is not available, but four main steps are generally accepted: defining the main topic, searching the literature, analyzing the results, and writing ( 6 ). We suggest a fifth step: reflecting on the information that has been written in previous publications ( Figure 2 ).

First step: Defining the main topic

Planning an LR is directly linked to the research main question of the thesis and occurs in parallel to students’ training in the three domains discussed above. The planning stage helps organize ideas, delimit the scope of the LR ( 11 ), and avoid the wasting of time in the process. Planning includes the following steps:

• Reflecting on the scope of the LR: postgraduate students will have assumptions about what material must be addressed and what information is not essential to an LR ( 13 , 18 ). Cooper’s Taxonomy of Literature Reviews 2 systematizes the writing process through six characteristics and nonmutually exclusive categories. The focus refers to the reviewer’s most important points of interest, while the goals concern what students want to achieve with the LR. The perspective assumes answers to the student’s own view of the LR and how he/she presents a particular issue. The coverage defines how comprehensive the student is in presenting the literature, and the organization determines the sequence of arguments. The audience is defined as the group for whom the LR is written.
• Designating sections and subsections: Headings and subheadings should be specific, explanatory and have a coherent sequence throughout the text ( 4 ). They simulate an inverted pyramid, with an increasing level of reflection and depth of argument.
• Identifying keywords: The relevant keywords for each LR section should be listed to guide the literature search. This list should mirror what Hart (1998) ( 3 ) advocates as subject vocabulary . The keywords will also be useful when the student is writing the LR since they guide the reader through the text.
• Delineating the time interval and language of documents to be retrieved in the second step. The most recently published documents should be considered, but relevant texts published before a predefined cutoff year can be included if they are classic documents in that field. Extra care should be employed when translating documents.

Second step: Searching the literature

The ability to gather adequate information from the literature must be addressed in postgraduate programs. Librarian support is important, particularly for accessing difficult texts. This step comprises the following components:

• Searching the literature itself: This process consists of defining which databases (electronic or dissertation/thesis repositories), official documents, and books will be searched and then actively conducting the search. Information literacy skills have a central role in this stage. While searching electronic databases, controlled vocabulary (e.g., Medical Subject Headings, or MeSH, for the PubMed database) or specific standardized syntax rules may need to be applied.

In addition, two other approaches are suggested. First, a review of the reference list of each document might be useful for identifying relevant publications to be included and important opinions to be assessed. This step is also relevant for referencing the original studies and leading authors in that field. Moreover, students can directly contact the experts on a particular topic to consult with them regarding their experience or use them as a source of additional unpublished documents.

Before submitting a dissertation/thesis, the electronic search strategy should be repeated. This process will ensure that the most recently published papers will be considered in the LR.

• Selecting documents for inclusion: Generally, the most recent literature will be included in the form of published peer-reviewed papers. Assess books and unpublished material, such as conference abstracts, academic texts and government reports, are also important to assess since the gray literature also offers valuable information. However, since these materials are not peer-reviewed, we recommend that they are carefully added to the LR.

This task is an important exercise in time management. First, students should read the title and abstract to understand whether that document suits their purposes, addresses the research question, and helps develop the topic of interest. Then, they should scan the full text, determine how it is structured, group it with similar documents, and verify whether other arguments might be considered ( 5 ).

Third step: Analyzing the results

Critical reading and thinking skills are important in this step. This step consists of the following components:

• Reading documents: The student may read various texts in depth according to LR sections and subsections ( defining the main topic ), which is not a passive activity ( 1 ). Some questions should be asked to practice critical analysis skills, as listed below. Is the research question evident and articulated with previous knowledge? What are the authors’ research goals and theoretical orientations, and how do they interact? Are the authors’ claims related to other scholars’ research? Do the authors consider different perspectives? Was the research project designed and conducted properly? Are the results and discussion plausible, and are they consistent with the research objectives and methodology? What are the strengths and limitations of this work? How do the authors support their findings? How does this work contribute to the current research topic? ( 1 , 19 )
• Taking notes: Students who systematically take notes on each document are more readily able to establish similarities or differences with other documents and to highlight personal observations. This approach reinforces the student’s ideas about the next step and helps develop his/her own academic voice ( 1 , 13 ). Voice recognition software ( 16 ), mind maps ( 5 ), flowcharts, tables, spreadsheets, personal comments on the referenced texts, and note-taking apps are all available tools for managing these observations, and the student him/herself should use the tool that best improves his/her learning. Additionally, when a student is considering submitting an LR to a peer-reviewed journal, notes should be taken on the activities performed in all five steps to ensure that they are able to be replicated.

Fourth step: Writing

The recognition of when a student is able and ready to write after a sufficient period of reading and thinking is likely a difficult task. Some students can produce a review in a single long work session. However, as discussed above, writing is not a linear process, and students do not need to write LRs according to a specific sequence of sections. Writing an LR is a time-consuming task, and some scholars believe that a period of at least six months is sufficient ( 6 ). An LR, and academic writing in general, expresses the writer’s proper thoughts, conclusions about others’ work ( 6 , 10 , 13 , 16 ), and decisions about methods to progress in the chosen field of knowledge. Thus, each student is expected to present a different learning and writing trajectory.

In this step, writing methods should be considered; then, editing, citing and correct referencing should complete this stage, at least temporarily. Freewriting techniques may be a good starting point for brainstorming ideas and improving the understanding of the information that has been read ( 1 ). Students should consider the following parameters when creating an agenda for writing the LR: two-hour writing blocks (at minimum), with prespecified tasks that are possible to complete in one section; short (minutes) and long breaks (days or weeks) to allow sufficient time for mental rest and reflection; and short- and long-term goals to motivate the writing itself ( 20 ). With increasing experience, this scheme can vary widely, and it is not a straightforward rule. Importantly, each discipline has a different way of writing ( 1 ), and each department has its own preferred styles for citations and references.

Fifth step: Reflecting on the writing

In this step, the postgraduate student should ask him/herself the same questions as in the analyzing the results step, which can take more time than anticipated. Ambiguities, repeated ideas, and a lack of coherence may not be noted when the student is immersed in the writing task for long periods. The whole effort will likely be a work in progress, and continuous refinements in the written material will occur once the writing process has begun.

LITERATURE REVIEW CHECKLIST

In contrast to review papers, the LR of a dissertation/thesis should not be a standalone piece or work. Instead, it should present the student as a scholar and should maintain the interest of the audience in how that dissertation/thesis will provide solutions for the current gaps in a particular field.

A checklist for evaluating an LR is convenient for students’ continuous academic development and research transparency: it clearly states the desired achievements for the LR of a dissertation/thesis. Here, we present an LR checklist developed from an LR scoring rubric ( 11 ). For a critical analysis of an LR, we maintain the five categories but offer twelve criteria that are not scaled ( Figure 3 ). The criteria all have the same importance and are not mutually exclusive.

First category: Coverage

1. justified criteria exist for the inclusion and exclusion of literature in the review.

This criterion builds on the main topic and areas covered by the LR ( 18 ). While experts may be confident in retrieving and selecting literature, postgraduate students must convince their audience about the adequacy of their search strategy and their reasons for intentionally selecting what material to cover ( 11 ). References from different fields of knowledge provide distinct perspective, but narrowing the scope of coverage may be important in areas with a large body of existing knowledge.

Second category: Synthesis

2. a critical examination of the state of the field exists.

A critical examination is an assessment of distinct aspects in the field ( 1 ) along with a constructive argument. It is not a negative critique but an expression of the student’s understanding of how other scholars have added to the topic ( 1 ), and the student should analyze and contextualize contradictory statements. A writer’s personal bias (beliefs or political involvement) have been shown to influence the structure and writing of a document; therefore, the cultural and paradigmatic background guide how the theories are revised and presented ( 13 ). However, an honest judgment is important when considering different perspectives.

3. The topic or problem is clearly placed in the context of the broader scholarly literature

The broader scholarly literature should be related to the chosen main topic for the LR ( how to develop the literature review section). The LR can cover the literature from one or more disciplines, depending on its scope, but it should always offer a new perspective. In addition, students should be careful in citing and referencing previous publications. As a rule, original studies and primary references should generally be included. Systematic and narrative reviews present summarized data, and it may be important to cite them, particularly for issues that should be understood but do not require a detailed description. Similarly, quotations highlight the exact statement from another publication. However, excessive referencing may disclose lower levels of analysis and synthesis by the student.

4. The LR is critically placed in the historical context of the field

Situating the LR in its historical context shows the level of comfort of the student in addressing a particular topic. Instead of only presenting statements and theories in a temporal approach, which occasionally follows a linear timeline, the LR should authentically characterize the student’s academic work in the state-of-art techniques in their particular field of knowledge. Thus, the LR should reinforce why the dissertation/thesis represents original work in the chosen research field.

5. Ambiguities in definitions are considered and resolved

Distinct theories on the same topic may exist in different disciplines, and one discipline may consider multiple concepts to explain one topic. These misunderstandings should be addressed and contemplated. The LR should not synthesize all theories or concepts at the same time. Although this approach might demonstrate in-depth reading on a particular topic, it can reveal a student’s inability to comprehend and synthesize his/her research problem.

6. Important variables and phenomena relevant to the topic are articulated

The LR is a unique opportunity to articulate ideas and arguments and to purpose new relationships between them ( 10 , 11 ). More importantly, a sound LR will outline to the audience how these important variables and phenomena will be addressed in the current academic work. Indeed, the LR should build a bidirectional link with the remaining sections and ground the connections between all of the sections ( Figure 1 ).

7. A synthesized new perspective on the literature has been established

The LR is a ‘creative inquiry’ ( 13 ) in which the student elaborates his/her own discourse, builds on previous knowledge in the field, and describes his/her own perspective while interpreting others’ work ( 13 , 17 ). Thus, students should articulate the current knowledge, not accept the results at face value ( 11 , 13 , 17 ), and improve their own cognitive abilities ( 12 ).

Third category: Methodology

8. the main methodologies and research techniques that have been used in the field are identified and their advantages and disadvantages are discussed.

The LR is expected to distinguish the research that has been completed from investigations that remain to be performed, address the benefits and limitations of the main methods applied to date, and consider the strategies for addressing the expected limitations described above. While placing his/her research within the methodological context of a particular topic, the LR will justify the methodology of the study and substantiate the student’s interpretations.

9. Ideas and theories in the field are related to research methodologies

The audience expects the writer to analyze and synthesize methodological approaches in the field. The findings should be explained according to the strengths and limitations of previous research methods, and students must avoid interpretations that are not supported by the analyzed literature. This criterion translates to the student’s comprehension of the applicability and types of answers provided by different research methodologies, even those using a quantitative or qualitative research approach.

Fourth category: Significance

10. the scholarly significance of the research problem is rationalized.

The LR is an introductory section of a dissertation/thesis and will present the postgraduate student as a scholar in a particular field ( 11 ). Therefore, the LR should discuss how the research problem is currently addressed in the discipline being investigated or in different disciplines, depending on the scope of the LR. The LR explains the academic paradigms in the topic of interest ( 13 ) and methods to advance the field from these starting points. However, an excess number of personal citations—whether referencing the student’s research or studies by his/her research team—may reflect a narrow literature search and a lack of comprehensive synthesis of ideas and arguments.

11. The practical significance of the research problem is rationalized

The practical significance indicates a student’s comprehensive understanding of research terminology (e.g., risk versus associated factor), methodology (e.g., efficacy versus effectiveness) and plausible interpretations in the context of the field. Notably, the academic argument about a topic may not always reflect the debate in real life terms. For example, using a quantitative approach in epidemiology, statistically significant differences between groups do not explain all of the factors involved in a particular problem ( 21 ). Therefore, excessive faith in p -values may reflect lower levels of critical evaluation of the context and implications of a research problem by the student.

Fifth category: Rhetoric

12. the lr was written with a coherent, clear structure that supported the review.

This category strictly relates to the language domain: the text should be coherent and presented in a logical sequence, regardless of which organizational ( 18 ) approach is chosen. The beginning of each section/subsection should state what themes will be addressed, paragraphs should be carefully linked to each other ( 10 ), and the first sentence of each paragraph should generally summarize the content. Additionally, the student’s statements are clear, sound, and linked to other scholars’ works, and precise and concise language that follows standardized writing conventions (e.g., in terms of active/passive voice and verb tenses) is used. Attention to grammar, such as orthography and punctuation, indicates prudence and supports a robust dissertation/thesis. Ultimately, all of these strategies provide fluency and consistency for the text.

Although the scoring rubric was initially proposed for postgraduate programs in education research, we are convinced that this checklist is a valuable tool for all academic areas. It enables the monitoring of students’ learning curves and a concentrated effort on any criteria that are not yet achieved. For institutions, the checklist is a guide to support supervisors’ feedback, improve students’ writing skills, and highlight the learning goals of each program. These criteria do not form a linear sequence, but ideally, all twelve achievements should be perceived in the LR.

CONCLUSIONS

A single correct method to classify, evaluate and guide the elaboration of an LR has not been established. In this essay, we have suggested directions for planning, structuring and critically evaluating an LR. The planning of the scope of an LR and approaches to complete it is a valuable effort, and the five steps represent a rational starting point. An institutional environment devoted to active learning will support students in continuously reflecting on LRs, which will form a dialogue between the writer and the current literature in a particular field ( 13 ).

The completion of an LR is a challenging and necessary process for understanding one’s own field of expertise. Knowledge is always transitory, but our responsibility as scholars is to provide a critical contribution to our field, allowing others to think through our work. Good researchers are grounded in sophisticated LRs, which reveal a writer’s training and long-lasting academic skills. We recommend using the LR checklist as a tool for strengthening the skills necessary for critical academic writing.

AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS

Leite DFB has initially conceived the idea and has written the first draft of this review. Padilha MAS and Cecatti JG have supervised data interpretation and critically reviewed the manuscript. All authors have read the draft and agreed with this submission. Authors are responsible for all aspects of this academic piece.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We are grateful to all of the professors of the ‘Getting Started with Graduate Research and Generic Skills’ module at University College Cork, Cork, Ireland, for suggesting and supporting this article. Funding: DFBL has granted scholarship from Brazilian Federal Agency for Support and Evaluation of Graduate Education (CAPES) to take part of her Ph.D. studies in Ireland (process number 88881.134512/2016-01). There is no participation from sponsors on authors’ decision to write or to submit this manuscript.

No potential conflict of interest was reported.

1 The questions posed in systematic reviews usually follow the ‘PICOS’ acronym: Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcomes, Study design.

2 In 1988, Cooper proposed a taxonomy that aims to facilitate students’ and institutions’ understanding of literature reviews. Six characteristics with specific categories are briefly described: Focus: research outcomes, research methodologies, theories, or practices and applications; Goals: integration (generalization, conflict resolution, and linguistic bridge-building), criticism, or identification of central issues; Perspective: neutral representation or espousal of a position; Coverage: exhaustive, exhaustive with selective citations, representative, central or pivotal; Organization: historical, conceptual, or methodological; and Audience: specialized scholars, general scholars, practitioners or policymakers, or the general public.

University Library Services

Study skills- literature review.

• Characteristics of a Literature Review
• Searching for Literature
• Save your Sources
• Critical Thinking
• Academic Writing Tips
• Referencing

What is a Literature Review?

• What is a Literature review?
• Why do a Literature review?

When thinking about conducting a literature review, it is always useful to begin with  what a literature review actually is.

We can define a literature review as  ' a critical evaluation of the existing published work in a selected subject area '.  In simple terms, it is an overall view of what is known about your subject and what is not known, which demonstrates your understanding of the topic and the debates surrounding it.

Jesson, Mattheson and Lacey (2011, pp.22-23) highlight that, an academic literature review allows you to show,

that you are aware of and can interpret what is already known about your topic you can make sense of the literature, highlighting trends, common themes, debates, contradictions, and gaps in existing knowledge when part of a research project or dissertation, you can discuss how your research is important and how it will contribute to the existing knowledge. 

You might come across different definitions and expectations of what a literature review is.

The Thinglink below explores an alternative one offered by Dianna Ridley (2012). Read the definition and examine the three key elements it highlights by clicking on the tags. Compare these to the elements listed above

For study skills support on the other dissertation areas see the dissertation Library Guide link below. 

• Study Skills- Dissertation by Katie Hobson Last Updated May 9, 2024 627 views this year

Why you are being asked to conduct a literature review will determine what you include within it. You may, for example, be asked to write a stand-alone literature review on a topic, or you might need to produce a literature review as part of a research proposal or project. It is vital that you read your brief and understand the purpose of your review to ensure it does what it needs to.

In short, producing a literature review shows that you can handle academic material and understand the impact of the strengths and limitations of the different sources. It demonstrates that you can make sense of a complex topic and explain the trends, agreements, debates, and gaps in knowledge clearly. Finally, a literature review shows that you can use this understanding to inform your own ideas and research, where appropriate. 

Check your understanding with the quick drag-and-drop activity below:

References and additional reading:

Jesson, J. K., Matheson, L. and Lacey, F. M. (2011)  Doing your literature review: Traditional and Systematic Techniques .  London: Sage Publications Ltd.

Ridley, D. (2012)  The literature review: a step-by-step guide for students .  Los Angeles: Sage Publications Ltd.

• Last Updated: May 1, 2024 2:33 PM
• URL: https://libraryguides.sunderland.ac.uk/literature-review

Literature Reviews

• Types of reviews
• Getting started

Types of reviews and examples

Choosing a review type.

• 1. Define your research question
• 2. Plan your search
• 3. Search the literature
• 4. Organize your results
• 5. Synthesize your findings
• 6. Write the review
• Artificial intelligence (AI) tools
• Thompson Writing Studio This link opens in a new window
• Need to write a systematic review? This link opens in a new window

Contact a Librarian

Ask a Librarian

• Meta-analysis
• Systematized

Definition:

"A term used to describe a conventional overview of the literature, particularly when contrasted with a systematic review (Booth et al., 2012, p. 265).

Characteristics:

• Provides examination of recent or current literature on a wide range of subjects
• Varying levels of completeness / comprehensiveness, non-standardized methodology
• May or may not include comprehensive searching, quality assessment or critical appraisal

Mitchell, L. E., & Zajchowski, C. A. (2022). The history of air quality in Utah: A narrative review.  Sustainability ,  14 (15), 9653.  doi.org/10.3390/su14159653

Booth, A., Papaioannou, D., & Sutton, A. (2012). Systematic approaches to a successful literature review. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.

"An assessment of what is already known about a policy or practice issue...using systematic review methods to search and critically appraise existing research" (Grant & Booth, 2009, p. 100).

• Assessment of what is already known about an issue
• Similar to a systematic review but within a time-constrained setting
• Typically employs methodological shortcuts, increasing risk of introducing bias, includes basic level of quality assessment
• Best suited for issues needing quick decisions and solutions (i.e., policy recommendations)

Learn more about the method:

Khangura, S., Konnyu, K., Cushman, R., Grimshaw, J., & Moher, D. (2012). Evidence summaries: the evolution of a rapid review approach.  Systematic reviews, 1 (1), 1-9.  https://doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-1-10

Virginia Commonwealth University Libraries. (2021). Rapid Review Protocol .

Quarmby, S., Santos, G., & Mathias, M. (2019). Air quality strategies and technologies: A rapid review of the international evidence.  Sustainability, 11 (10), 2757.  https://doi.org/10.3390/su11102757

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

Developed and refined by the Evidence for Policy and Practice Information and Co-ordinating Centre (EPPI-Centre), this review "map[s] out and categorize[s] existing literature on a particular topic, identifying gaps in research literature from which to commission further reviews and/or primary research" (Grant & Booth, 2009, p. 97).

Although mapping reviews are sometimes called scoping reviews, the key difference is that mapping reviews focus on a review question, rather than a topic

Mapping reviews are "best used where a clear target for a more focused evidence product has not yet been identified" (Booth, 2016, p. 14)

Mapping review searches are often quick and are intended to provide a broad overview

Mapping reviews can take different approaches in what types of literature is focused on in the search

Cooper I. D. (2016). What is a "mapping study?".  Journal of the Medical Library Association: JMLA ,  104 (1), 76–78. https://doi.org/10.3163/1536-5050.104.1.013

Miake-Lye, I. M., Hempel, S., Shanman, R., & Shekelle, P. G. (2016). What is an evidence map? A systematic review of published evidence maps and their definitions, methods, and products.  Systematic reviews, 5 (1), 1-21.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-016-0204-x

Tainio, M., Andersen, Z. J., Nieuwenhuijsen, M. J., Hu, L., De Nazelle, A., An, R., ... & de Sá, T. H. (2021). Air pollution, physical activity and health: A mapping review of the evidence.  Environment international ,  147 , 105954.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2020.105954

Booth, A. (2016). EVIDENT Guidance for Reviewing the Evidence: a compendium of methodological literature and websites . ResearchGate. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.1562.9842 . 

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

"A type of review that has as its primary objective the identification of the size and quality of research in a topic area in order to inform subsequent review" (Booth et al., 2012, p. 269).

• Main purpose is to map out and categorize existing literature, identify gaps in literature—great for informing policy-making
• Search comprehensiveness determined by time/scope constraints, could take longer than a systematic review
• No formal quality assessment or critical appraisal

Learn more about the methods :

Arksey, H., & O'Malley, L. (2005) Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework.  International Journal of Social Research Methodology ,  8 (1), 19-32.  https://doi.org/10.1080/1364557032000119616

Levac, D., Colquhoun, H., & O’Brien, K. K. (2010). Scoping studies: Advancing the methodology. Implementation Science: IS, 5, 69. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-5-69

Example : 

Rahman, A., Sarkar, A., Yadav, O. P., Achari, G., & Slobodnik, J. (2021). Potential human health risks due to environmental exposure to nano-and microplastics and knowledge gaps: A scoping review.  Science of the Total Environment, 757 , 143872.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.143872

A review that "[compiles] evidence from multiple...reviews into one accessible and usable document" (Grant & Booth, 2009, p. 103). While originally intended to be a compilation of Cochrane reviews, it now generally refers to any kind of evidence synthesis.

• Compiles evidence from multiple reviews into one document
• Often defines a broader question than is typical of a traditional systematic review

Choi, G. J., & Kang, H. (2022). The umbrella review: a useful strategy in the rain of evidence.  The Korean Journal of Pain ,  35 (2), 127–128.  https://doi.org/10.3344/kjp.2022.35.2.127

Aromataris, E., Fernandez, R., Godfrey, C. M., Holly, C., Khalil, H., & Tungpunkom, P. (2015). Summarizing systematic reviews: Methodological development, conduct and reporting of an umbrella review approach. International Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare , 13(3), 132–140. https://doi.org/10.1097/XEB.0000000000000055

Rojas-Rueda, D., Morales-Zamora, E., Alsufyani, W. A., Herbst, C. H., Al Balawi, S. M., Alsukait, R., & Alomran, M. (2021). Environmental risk factors and health: An umbrella review of meta-analyses.  International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Dealth ,  18 (2), 704.  https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18020704

A meta-analysis is a "technique that statistically combines the results of quantitative studies to provide a more precise effect of the result" (Grant & Booth, 2009, p. 98).

• Statistical technique for combining results of quantitative studies to provide more precise effect of results
• Aims for exhaustive, comprehensive searching
• Quality assessment may determine inclusion/exclusion criteria
• May be conducted independently or as part of a systematic review

Berman, N. G., & Parker, R. A. (2002). Meta-analysis: Neither quick nor easy. BMC Medical Research Methodology , 2(1), 10. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-2-10

Hites R. A. (2004). Polybrominated diphenyl ethers in the environment and in people: a meta-analysis of concentrations.  Environmental Science & Technology ,  38 (4), 945–956.  https://doi.org/10.1021/es035082g

A systematic review "seeks to systematically search for, appraise, and [synthesize] research evidence, often adhering to the guidelines on the conduct of a review" provided by discipline-specific organizations, such as the Cochrane Collaboration (Grant & Booth, 2009, p. 102).

• Aims to compile and synthesize all known knowledge on a given topic
• Adheres to strict guidelines, protocols, and frameworks
• Time-intensive and often takes months to a year or more to complete
• The most commonly referred to type of evidence synthesis. Sometimes confused as a blanket term for other types of reviews

Gascon, M., Triguero-Mas, M., Martínez, D., Dadvand, P., Forns, J., Plasència, A., & Nieuwenhuijsen, M. J. (2015). Mental health benefits of long-term exposure to residential green and blue spaces: a systematic review.  International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health ,  12 (4), 4354–4379.  https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph120404354

"Systematized reviews attempt to include one or more elements of the systematic review process while stopping short of claiming that the resultant output is a systematic review" (Grant & Booth, 2009, p. 102). When a systematic review approach is adapted to produce a more manageable scope, while still retaining the rigor of a systematic review such as risk of bias assessment and the use of a protocol, this is often referred to as a  structured review  (Huelin et al., 2015).

• Typically conducted by postgraduate or graduate students
• Often assigned by instructors to students who don't have the resources to conduct a full systematic review

Salvo, G., Lashewicz, B. M., Doyle-Baker, P. K., & McCormack, G. R. (2018). Neighbourhood built environment influences on physical activity among adults: A systematized review of qualitative evidence.  International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health ,  15 (5), 897.  https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15050897

Huelin, R., Iheanacho, I., Payne, K., & Sandman, K. (2015). What’s in a name? Systematic and non-systematic literature reviews, and why the distinction matters. https://www.evidera.com/resource/whats-in-a-name-systematic-and-non-systematic-literature-reviews-and-why-the-distinction-matters/

• Review Decision Tree - Cornell University For more information, check out Cornell's review methodology decision tree.
• LitR-Ex.com - Eight literature review methodologies Learn more about 8 different review types (incl. Systematic Reviews and Scoping Reviews) with practical tips about strengths and weaknesses of different methods.
• << Previous: Getting started
• Next: 1. Define your research question >>
• Last Updated: May 17, 2024 8:42 AM
• URL: https://guides.library.duke.edu/litreviews

Services for...

• Faculty & Instructors
• Graduate Students
• Undergraduate Students
• International Students
• Patrons with Disabilities

• Harmful Language Statement
• Re-use & Attribution / Privacy
• Support the Libraries

Leveraging collective action and environmental literacy to address complex sustainability challenges

• Perspective
• Open access
• Published: 09 August 2022
• Volume 52 , pages 30–44, ( 2023 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Nicole M. Ardoin   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-3290-8211 1 ,
• Alison W. Bowers 2 &
• Mele Wheaton 3  

8241 Accesses

18 Citations

20 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

Developing and enhancing societal capacity to understand, debate elements of, and take actionable steps toward a sustainable future at a scale beyond the individual are critical when addressing sustainability challenges such as climate change, resource scarcity, biodiversity loss, and zoonotic disease. Although mounting evidence exists for how to facilitate individual action to address sustainability challenges, there is less understanding of how to foster collective action in this realm. To support research and practice promoting collective action to address sustainability issues, we define the term “collective environmental literacy” by delineating four key potent aspects: scale, dynamic processes, shared resources, and synergy. Building on existing collective constructs and thought, we highlight areas where researchers, practitioners, and policymakers can support individuals and communities as they come together to identify, develop, and implement solutions to wicked problems. We close by discussing limitations of this work and future directions in studying collective environmental literacy.

Similar content being viewed by others

Three pillars of sustainability: in search of conceptual origins

Reimagining the language of engagement in a post-stakeholder world

Can public awareness, knowledge and engagement improve climate change adaptation policies?

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Introduction

For socio-ecologically intertwined issues—such as climate change, land conversion, biodiversity loss, resource scarcity, and zoonotic diseases—and their associated multi-decadal timeframes, individual action is necessary, yet not sufficient, for systemic, sustained change (Amel et al. 2017 ; Bodin 2017 ; Niemiec et al. 2020 ; Spitzer and Fraser 2020 ). Instead, collective action, or individuals working together toward a common good, is essential for achieving the scope and scale of solutions to current sustainability challenges. To support communities as they engage in policy and action for socio-environmental change, communicators, land managers, policymakers, and other practitioners need an understanding of how communities coalesce and leverage their shared knowledge, skills, connections, and experiences.

Engagement efforts, such as those grounded in behavior-change approaches or community-based social marketing initiatives, that address socio-environmental issues have often emphasized individuals as the pathway to change. Such efforts address a range of domains including, but not limited to, residential energy use, personal transportation choices, and workplace recycling efforts, often doing so in a stepwise fashion, envisioning each setting or suite of behaviors as discrete spheres of action and influence (Heimlich and Ardoin 2008 ; McKenzie-Mohr 2011 ). In this way, specific actions are treated incrementally and linearly, considering first the individual barriers to be removed and then the motivations to be activated (and, sometimes, sustained; Monroe 2003 ; Gifford et al. 2011 ). Once each behavior is successfully instantiated, the next barrier is then addressed. Proceeding methodically from one action to the next, such initiatives often quite successfully alter a series of actions or group of related behaviors (at least initially) by addressing them incrementally, one at a time (Byerly et al. 2018 ). Following this aspirational logic chain, many resources have been channeled into such programs under the assumption that, by raising awareness and knowledge, such information, communication, and educational outreach efforts will shift attitudes and behaviors to an extent that, ultimately, mass-scale change will follow. (See discussion in Wals et al. 2014 .)

Numerous studies have demonstrated, however, that challenges arise with these stepwise approaches, particularly with regard to their ability to address complex issues and persist over time (Heimlich and Ardoin 2008 ; Wals et al. 2014 ). Such approaches place a tremendous—and unrealistic—burden on individuals, ignoring key aspects not only of behavioral science but also of social science more broadly, including the view that humans exist nested within socio-ecological systems and, thus, are most successful at achieving lasting change when it is meaningful, relevant, and undertaken within a supportive context (Swim et al. 2011 ; Feola 2015 ). Individualized approaches often require multiple steps or nudges (Byerly et al. 2018 ), or ongoing reminders to retain their salience (Stern et al. 2008 ). Because of the emphasis on decontextualized action, such approaches can miss, ignore, obfuscate, or minimize the importance of the bigger picture, which includes the sociocultural, biophysical, and political economic contexts (Ardoin 2006 ; Amel et al. 2017 ). Although the tightly trained focus on small, actionable steps and reliance on individual willpower may help in initially achieving success with initial habit formation (Carden and Wood 2018 ), it becomes questionable in terms of bringing about a wave of transformation on larger scales in the longer term. For those decontextualized actions to persist, they require continued prompting, constancy, and support in the social and biophysical context (Schultz 2014 ; Manfredo et al. 2016 ; Wood and Rünger 2016 ).

Less common in practice are theoretically based initiatives that embrace the holistic nature of the human experience, which occurs within complex systems spanning time and space in a multidimensional, weblike fashion (Bronfenbrenner 1979 ; Rogoff 2003 ; Barron 2006 ; DeCaro and Stokes 2008 ; Gould et al. 2019 ; Hovardas 2020 ). These systems-thinking approaches, while varying across disciplines and epistemological perspectives, envision human experiences, including learning and behavior, as occurring within a milieu that include the social, political, cultural, and historical contexts (Rogoff 2003 ; Roth and Lee 2007 ; Swim et al. 2011 ; Gordon 2019 ). In such a view, people’s everyday practices continuously reflect and grow out of past learning and experiences, not only at the individual, but also at the collective level (Lave 1991 ; Gutiérrez and Rogoff 2003 ; Nasir et al. 2020 ; Ardoin and Heimlich 2021 ). The multidimensional context in which we exist—including the broader temporal and spatial ecosystem—both facilitates and constrains our actions.

Scholars across diverse areas of study discuss the need for and power of collective thought and action, using various conceptual frames, models, and terms, such as collective action, behavior, impact, and intelligence; collaborative governance; communities of practice; crowdsourcing; and social movement theory; among many others (Table 1 ). These scholars acknowledge and explore the influence of our multidimensional context on collective thought and action. In this paper, we explore the elements and processes that constitute collective environmental literacy . We draw on the vast, relevant literature and, in so doing, we attempt to invoke the power of the collective: by reviewing and synthesizing ideas from a variety of fields, we strive to leverage existing constructs and perspectives that explore notions of the “collective” (see Table 1 for a summary of constructs and theories reviewed to develop our working definition of collective environmental literacy). A primary goal of this paper is to dialogue with other researchers and practitioners working in this arena who are eager to uncover and further explore related avenues.

First, we present a formal definition of collective environmental literacy. Next, we briefly review the dominant view of environmental literacy at the individual level and, in support of a collective take on environmental literacy, we examine various collective constructs. We then delve more deeply into the definition of collective environmental literacy by outlining four key aspects: scale, dynamic processes, shared resources, and synergy. We conclude by providing suggestions for future directions in studying collective environmental literacy.

Defining collective environmental literacy

Decades of research in political science, economics, anthropology, sociology, psychology, and the learning sciences, among other fields (Chawla and Cushing 2007 ; Ostrom 2009 ; Sawyer 2014 ; Bamberg et al. 2015 ; Chan 2016 ; Jost et al. 2017 ) repeatedly demonstrates the effectiveness, and indeed necessity of, collective action when addressing problems that are inherently social in nature. Yet theoretical frameworks and empirical documentation emphasize that such collective activities rarely arise spontaneously and, when they do, are a result of preconditions that have sown fertile ground (van Zomeren et al. 2008 ; Duncan 2018 ). Persistent and effective collective action then requires scaffolding in the form of institutional, sociocultural, and political economic structure that provides ongoing support. To facilitate discussions of how to effectively support collective action around sustainability issues, we suggest the concept of “collective environmental literacy.” We conceptualize collective environmental literacy as more than collective action; rather, we suggest that the term encapsulates action along with its various supporting structures and resources. Additionally, we employ the word “literacy” as it connotes learning, intention, and the idea that knowledge, skills, attitudes, and behaviors can be enhanced iteratively over time. By using “literacy,” we strive to highlight the efforts, often unseen, that lead to effective collective action in communities. We draw on scholarship in science and health education, areas that have begun over the past two decades to theorize about related areas of collective science literacy (Roth and Lee 2002 , 2004 ; Lee and Roth 2003 ; Feinstein 2018 ) and health literacy (Freedman et al. 2009 ; Papen 2009 ; Chinn 2011 ; Guzys et al. 2015 ). Although these evolving constructs lack consensus definitions, they illuminate affordances and constraints that exist when conceptualizing collective environmental literacy (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine [NASEM] 2016 ).

Some of the key necessary—but not sufficient—conditions that facilitate aligned, collective actions include a common body of decision-making information; shared attitudes, values, and beliefs toward a motivating issue or concern; and efficacy skills that facilitate change-making (Sturmer and Simon 2004 ; van Zomeren et al. 2008 ; Jagers et al. 2020 ). In addition, other contextual factors are essential, such as trust, reciprocity, collective efficacy, and communication among group members and societal-level facilitators, such as social norms, institutions, and technology (Bandura 2000 ; Ostrom 2010 ; McAdam and Boudet 2012 ; Jagers et al. 2020 ). Taken together, we term this body of knowledge, dispositions, skills, and the context in which they flourish collective environmental literacy . More formally, we define collective environmental literacy as: a dynamic, synergistic process that occurs as group members develop and leverage shared resources to undertake individual and aggregate actions over time to address sustainability issues within the multi-scalar context of a socio-environmental system (Fig.  1 ).

Key elements of collective environmental literacy

Environmental literacy: Historically individual, increasingly collective

Over the past five decades, the term “environmental literacy” has come into increasingly frequent use. Breaking from the traditional association of “literacy” with reading and writing in formal school contexts, environmental literacy emphasizes associations with character and behavior, often in the form of responsible environmental stewardship (Roth 1992 ). Footnote 1 Such perspectives define the concept as including affective (attitudinal), cognitive (knowledge-based), and behavioral domains, emphasizing that environmental literacy is both a process and outcome that develops, builds, and morphs over time (Hollweg et al. 2011 ; Wheaton et al. 2018 ; Clark et al. 2020 ).

The emphasis on defining, measuring, and developing interventions to bring about environmental literacy has primarily remained at the individual scale, as evidenced by frequent descriptions of an environmentally literate person (Roth 1992 ; Hollweg et al. 2011 among others) rather than community or community member. In most understandings, discussions, and manifestations of environmental literacy, the implicit assumption remains that the unit of action, intervention, and therefore analysis occurs at the individual level. Yet instinctively and perhaps by nature, community members often seek information and, as a result, take action collectively, sharing what some scholars call “the hive mind” or “group mind,” relying on each other for distributed knowledge, expertise, motivation, and support (Surowiecki 2005 ; Sunstein 2008 ; Sloman and Fernbach 2017 ; Paul 2021 ).

As with the proverbial elephant (Saxe, n.d.), each person, household, or neighborhood group may understand or “see” a different part of an issue or challenge, bring a novel understanding to the table, and have a certain perspective or skill to contribute. Although some environmental literacy discussions allude to a collective lens (e.g., Hollweg et al. 2011 ; Ardoin et al. 2013 ; Wheaton et al. 2018 ; Bey et al. 2020 ), defining, developing frameworks, and creating measures to assess the efficacy of such collective-scale sustainability-related endeavors has remained elusive. Footnote 2 Looking to related fields and disciplines—such as ecosystem theory, epidemiology and public health, sociology, network theory, and urban planning, among others—can provide insight, theoretical frames, and empirical examples to assist in such conceptualizations (McAdam and Boudet 2012 ; National Research Council 2015 ) (See Table 1 for an overview of some of the many areas of study that informed our conceptualization of collective environmental literacy).

Seeking the essence of the collective: Looking to and learning from others

The social sciences have long focused on “the kinds of activities engaged in by sizable but loosely organized groups of people” (Turner et al. 2020 , para. 1) and addressed various collective constructs, such as collective behavior, action, intelligence, and memory (Table 1 ). Although related constructs in both the social and natural sciences—such as communities of practice (Wenger and Snyder 2000 ), collaborative governance (Ansell and Gash 2008 ; Emerson et al. 2012 ), and the collaboration–coordination continuum (Sadoff and Grey 2005 ; Prager 2015 ), as well as those from social movement theory and related areas (McAdam and Boudet 2012 ; de Moor and Wahlström 2019 )—lack the word “collective” in name, they too leverage the benefits of collectivity. A central tenet connects all of these areas: powerful processes, actions, and outcomes can arise when individuals coalesce around a common purpose or cause. This notion of a dynamic, potent force transcending the individual to enhance the efficacy of outcomes motivates the application of a collective lens to the environmental literacy concept.

Dating to the 1800s, discussions of collective behavior have explored connections to social order, structures, and norms (Park 1927 ; Smelser 2011 /1962; Turner and Killian 1987 ). Initially, the focus emphasized spontaneous, often violent crowd behaviors, such as riots, mobs, and rebellions. More contemporarily, sociologists, political scientists, and others who study social movements and collective behaviors acknowledge that such phenomena may take many forms, including those occurring in natural ecosystems, such as ant colonies, bird flocks, and even the human brain (Gordon 2019 ). In sociology, collective action represents a paradigm shift highlighting coordinated, purposeful pro-social movements, while de-emphasizing aroused emotions and crowd behavior (Miller 2014 ). In political science, Ostrom’s ( 1990 , 2000 , 2010 ) theory of collective action in the context of the management of shared resources extends the concept’s reach to economics and other fields. In education and the learning sciences, social learning and sociocultural theories tap into the idea of learning as a social-cognitive-cultural endeavor (Vygotsky 1980 ; Lave and Wenger 1991 ; Tudge and Winterhoff 1993 ; Rogoff 2003 ; Reed et al. 2010 ).

Collective action, specifically, and collective constructs, generally, have found their way into the research and practice in the fields of conservation, natural resources, and environmental management. Collective action theory has been applied in a range of settings and scenarios, including agriculture (Mills et al. 2011 ), invasive species management (Marshall et al. 2016 ; Sullivan et al. 2017 ; Lubeck et al. 2019 ; Clarke et al. 2021 ), fire management (Canadas et al. 2016 ; Charnley et al. 2020 ), habitat conservation (Raymond 2006 ; Niemiec et al. 2020 ), and water governance (Lopez-Gunn 2003 ; Baldwin et al. 2018 ), among others. Frameworks and methods that emphasize other collective-related ideas—like collaboration, co-production, and group learning—are also ubiquitous in natural resource and environmental management. These constructs include community-based conservation (DeCaro and Stokes 2008 ; Niemiec et al. 2016 ), community natural resource management (Kellert et al. 2000 ; Dale et al. 2020 ), collaboration/coordination (Sadoff and Grey 2005 ; Prager 2015 ), polycentricity (Galaz et al. 2012 ; Heikkila et al. 2018 ), knowledge co-production (Armitage et al. 2011 ; Singh et al. 2021 ), and social learning (Reed et al. 2010 ; Hovardas 2020 ). Many writings on collective efforts in the social sciences broadly, and applied in the area of environment specifically, provide insights into collective action’s necessary preconditions, which prove invaluable to further defining and later operationalizing collective environmental literacy.

Unpacking the definition of collective environmental literacy: Anchoring principles

As described, we propose the following working definition of collective environmental literacy drawing on our analysis of related literatures and informed by scholarly and professional experience in the sustainability and conservation fields: a dynamic, synergistic process that occurs as group members develop and leverage shared resources to undertake individual and aggregate actions over time to address sustainability issues within the multi-scalar context of a socio-environmental system (Fig.  1 ). This definition centers on four core, intertwined ideas: the scale of the group involved; the dynamic nature of the process; shared resources brought by, available to, and needed by the group; and the synergy that arises from group interaction.

Multi-scalar

When transitioning from the focus on individual to collective actions—and, herein, principles of environmental literacy—the most obvious and primary requisite shift is one of scale. Yet, moving to a collective scale does not mean abandoning action at the individual scale; rather, success at the collective level is intrinsically tied to what occurs at an individual level. Such collective-scale impacts leverage the power of the hive, harnessing people’s willingness, ability, and motivation to take action alongside others, share their ideas and resources to build collective ideas and resources, contribute to making a difference in an impactful way, and participate communally in pro-social activities.

Collective environmental literacy is likely dynamic in its orientation to scale, incorporating place-based notions, such as ecoregional or community-level environmental literacy (with an emphasis on geographic boundaries). On the other hand, it may encapsulate environmental literacy of a group or organization united by a common identity (e.g., organizational membership) or cause (e.g., old-growth forests, coastal protection), rather than solely or even primarily by geography. Although shifting scales can make measuring collective environmental literacy more difficult, dynamic levels may be a benefit when addressing planetary boundary issues such as climate change, biodiversity, and ocean acidification (Galaz et al. 2012 ). Some scholars have called for a polycentric approach to these large-scale issues in response to a perceived failure of global-wide, top-down solutions (Ostrom 2010 , 2012 ; Jordan et al. 2018 ). Conceptualizing and consequently supporting collective environmental literacy at multiple scales can facilitate such desired polycentricity.

Rather than representing a static outcome, environmental literacy is a dynamic process that is fluctuating and complex, reflective of iterative interactions among community members, whose discussions and negotiations reflect the changing context of sustainability issues. Footnote 3 Such open-minded processes allow for, and indeed welcome, adaptation in a way that builds social-ecological resilience (Berkes and Jolly 2002 ; Adger et al. 2005 ; Berkes 2007 ). Additionally, this dynamism allows for collective development and maturation, supporting community growth in collective knowledge, attitudes, skills, and actions via new experiences, interactions, and efforts (Berkman et al. 2010 ). With this mindset, and within a sociocultural perspective, collective environmental literacy evolves through drawing on and contributing to the community’s funds of knowledge (González et al. 2006 ). Movement and actions within and among groups impact collective literacy, as members share knowledge and other resources, shifting individuals and the group in the course of their shared practices (Samerski 2019 ).

In a collective mode, effectiveness is heightened as shared resources are streamlined, waste is minimized, and innovation maximized. Rather than each group member developing individual expertise in every matter of concern, the shared knowledge, skills, and behaviors can be distributed, pursued, and amplified among group members efficiently and effectively, with collective literacy emerging from the process of pooling diverse forms of capital and aggregating resources. This perspective builds on ideas of social capital as a collective good (Ostrom 1990 ; Putnam 2020 ), wherein relationships of trust and reciprocity are both inputs and outcomes (Pretty and Ward 2001 ). The shared resources then catalyze and sustain action as they are reassembled and coalesced at the group level for collective impact.

The pooled resources—likely vast—may include, but are not limited to, physical and human resources, funding, time, energy, and space and place (physical or digital). Shared resources may also include forms of theorized capital, such as intellectual and social (Putnam 2020 ). Also of note is the recognition that these resources extend far beyond information and knowledge. Of particular interest when building collective environmental literacy are resources previously ignored or overlooked by those in power in prior sustainability efforts. For example, collective environmental literacy can draw strength from shared resources unique to the community or even subgroups within the larger community. Discussions of Indigenous knowledge (Gadgil et al. 1993 ) and funds of knowledge (González et al. 2006 ; Cruz et al. 2018 ) suggest critical, shared resources that highlight strengths of an individual community and its members. Another dimension of shared resources relates to the strength of institutional connections, such as the benefits that accrue from leveraging the collective knowledge, expertise, and resources of organizational collaborators working in adjacent areas to further and amplify each other’s impact (Wojcik et al. 2021 ).

Synergistic

Finally, given the inherent complexities related to defining, deploying, implementing, and measuring these dynamic, at-times ephemeral processes, resources, and outcomes at a collective scale, working in such a manner must be clearly advantageous to pressing sustainability issues at hand. Numerous related constructs and approaches from a range of fields emphasize the benefits of diverse collaboration to collective thought and action, including improved solutions, more effective and fair processes, and more socioculturally just outcomes (Klein 1990 ; Jörg 2011 ; Wenger and Snyder 2000 ; Djenontin and Meadow 2018 ). These benefits go beyond efficient aggregation and distribution of resources, invoking an almost magical quality that defines synergy, resulting in robust processes and outcomes that are more than the sum of the parts.

This synergy relies on the diversity of a group across various dimensions, bringing power, strength, and insight to a decision-making process (Bear and Woolley 2011 ; Curşeu and Pluut 2013 ; Freeman and Huang 2015 ; Lu et al. 2017 ; Bendor and Page 2019 ). Individuals are limited not only to singular knowledge-perspectives and skillsets, but also to their own experiences, which influence their self-affirming viewpoints and tendencies to seek out confirmatory information for existing beliefs (Kahan et al. 2011 ). Although the coming together of those from different racial, cultural, social, and economic backgrounds facilitates a collective literacy process that draws on a wider range of resources and equips a gestalt, it also sets up the need to consider issues of power, privilege, voice, and representation (Bäckstrand 2006 ) and the role of social capital, leading to questions related to trust and reciprocity in effective collectives (Pretty and Ward 2001 ; Folke et al. 2005 ).

Leveraging the ‘Hive’: Proceeding with collective environmental literacy

This paper presents one conceptualization of collective environmental literacy, with the understanding that numerous ways exist to envision its definition, formation, deployment, and measurement. Characterized by a collective effort, such literacies at scale offer a way to imagine, measure, and support the synergy that occurs when the emphasis moves from an individual to a larger whole. By expanding the scale and focusing on shared responsibility among actors at the systems level, opportunities arise for inspiring and enabling a broader contribution to a sustainable future. These evolving notions serve to invite ongoing conversation, both in research and practice, about how to enact our collective responsibility toward, as well as vision of, a thriving future.

Emerging from the many discussions of shared and collaborative efforts to address socio-environmental issues, our conceptualization of collective environmental literacy is a first step toward supporting communities as they work to identify, address, and solve sustainability problems. We urge continued discussions on this topic, with the goal of understanding the concept of collective environmental literacy, how to measure it, and the implications of this work for practitioners. The conceptual roots of collective environmental literacy reach into countless fields of study and, as such, a transdisciplinary approach, which includes an eye toward practice, is necessary to fully capture and maximize the tremendous amount of knowledge, wisdom, and experience around this topic. Specifically, next steps to evolve the concept include engaging sustainability researchers and practitioners in discussions of the saliency of the presented definition of collective environmental literacy. These discussions include verifying the completeness of the definition and ensuring a thorough review of relevant research: Are parts of the definition missing or unclear? What are the “blank, blind, bald, and bright spots” in the literature (Reid 2019 p. 158)? Additionally, recognizing and leveraging literacy at a collective scale most certainly is not unique to environmental work, nor is adopting literacy-related language to conceptualize and measure process outcomes, although the former has consistently proven more challenging. Moreover, although we (the authors) appreciate the connotations and structures gained by using a literacy framework, we struggle with whether “environmental literacy” is the most appropriate and useful term for the conceptualizations as described herein; we, thus, welcome lively discussions about the need for new terminology.

Even at this early stage of conceptualization, this work has implications for practitioners. For scientists, communicators, policymakers, land managers, and other professionals desiring to work with communities to address sustainability issues, a primary take-away message concerns the holistic nature of what is needed for effective collective action in the environmental realm. Many previous efforts have focused on conveying information and, while a lack of knowledge and awareness may be a barrier to action in some cases, the need for a more holistic lens is increasingly clear. This move beyond an individually focused, information-deficit model is essential for effective impact (Bolderdijk et al. 2013 ; van der Linden 2014 ; Geiger et al. 2019 ). The concept of collective environmental literacy suggests a role for developing shared resources that can foster effective collective action. When working with communities, a critical early step includes some form of needs assessment—a systematic, in-depth process that allows for meaningfully gauging gaps in shared resources required to tackle sustainability issues (Braus 2011). Following this initial, evaluative step, an understanding of the components of collective environmental literacy, as outlined in this paper, can be used to guide the development of interventions to support communities in their efforts to address those issues.

Growing discussion of collective literacy constructs, and related areas, suggests researchers, practitioners, and policymakers working in pro-social areas recognize and value collective efforts, despite the need for clearer definitions and effective measures. This definitional and measurement work, in both research and practice, is not easy. The ever-changing, dynamic contexts in which collective environmental literacy exists make defining the concept a moving target, compounded by a need to draw upon work in countless, often distinct academic fields of study. Furthermore, the hard-to-see, inner workings of collective constructs make measurement difficult. Yet, the “power of the hive” is intriguing, as the synergism that arises from communities working in an aligned manner toward a unified vision suggests a potency and wave of motivated action essential to coalescing and leveraging individual goodwill, harnessing its power and potential toward effective sustainability solutions.

See Stables and Bishop’s ( 2001 ) idea of defining environmental literacy by viewing the environment as “text.”

The climate change education literature also includes a nascent, but growing, discussion of collective-lens thinking and literacy. See, for example, Waldron et al. ( 2019 ), Mochizuki and Bryan ( 2015 ), and Kopnina ( 2016 ).

This conceptualization is similar to how some scholars describe collective health literacy (Berkman et al., 2010 ; Mårtensson and Hensing, 2012 ).

Adger, W.N. 2003. Social capital, collective action, and adaptation to climate change. Economic Geography 79: 387–404.

Article   Google Scholar  

Adger, W.N., T.P. Hughes, C. Folke, S.R. Carpenter, and J. Rockström. 2005. Social-ecological resilience to coastal disasters. Science 309: 1036–1039. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1112122 .

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Adler, P.S., and S.-W. Kwon. 2002. Social capital: Prospects for a new concept. Academy of Management Review 27: 17–40. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2002.5922314 .

Agrawal, A. 1995. Dismantling the divide between Indigenous and scientific knowledge. Development and Change 26: 413–439. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7660.1995.tb00560.x .

Aguilar, O.M. 2018. Examining the literature to reveal the nature of community EE/ESD programs and research. Environmental Education Research 24: 26–49. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2016.1244658 .

Aguilar, O., A. Price, and M. Krasny. 2015. Perspectives on community environmental education. In M.C. Monroe & M.E. Krasny (Eds.), Across the spectrum: Resources for environmental educators (3rd edn., pp. 235–249). North American Association for Environmental Education.

Aldrich, D.P., and M.A. Meyer. 2015. Social capital and community resilience. American Behavioral Scientist 59: 254–269. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764214550299 .

Amel, E., C. Manning, B. Scott, and S. Koger. 2017. Beyond the roots of human inaction: Fostering collective effort toward ecosystem conservation. Science 356: 275–279. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aal1931 .

Ansell, C., and A. Gash. 2008. Collaborative governance in theory and practice. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 18: 543–571. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mum032 .

Ardoin, N.M. 2006. Toward an interdisciplinary understanding of place: Lessons for environmental education. Canadian Journal of Environmental Education 11: 112–126.

Google Scholar  

Ardoin, N.M., and J.E. Heimlich. 2021. Environmental learning in everyday life: Foundations of meaning and a context for change. Environmental Education Research 27: 1681–1699. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2021.1992354 .

Ardoin, N.M., C. Clark, and E. Kelsey. 2013. An exploration of future trends in environmental education research. Environmental Education Research 19: 499–520. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2012.709823 .

Armitage, D., F. Berkes, A. Dale, E. Kocho-Schellenberg, and E. Patton. 2011. Co-management and the co-production of knowledge: Learning to adapt in Canada’s Arctic. Global Environmental Change 21: 995–1004. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.04.006 .

Assis Neto, F.R., and C.A.S. Santos. 2018. Understanding crowdsourcing projects: A systematic review of tendencies, workflow, and quality management. Information Processing & Management 54: 490–506. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ipm.2018.03.006 .

Bäckstrand, K. 2006. Multi-stakeholder partnerships for sustainable development: Rethinking legitimacy, accountability and effectiveness. European Environment 16: 290–306. https://doi.org/10.1002/eet.425 .

Baldwin, E., P. McCord, J. Dell’Angelo, and T. Evans. 2018. Collective action in a polycentric water governance system. Environmental Policy and Governance 28: 212–222. https://doi.org/10.1002/eet.1810 .

Bamberg, S., J. Rees, and S. Seebauer. 2015. Collective climate action: Determinants of participation intention in community-based pro-environmental initiatives. Journal of Environmental Psychology 43: 155–165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2015.06.006 .

Bandura, A. 1977. Social learning theory . Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.

Bandura, A. 2000. Exercise of human agency through collective efficacy. Current Directions in Psychological Science 9: 75–78. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.00064 .

Barron, B. 2006. Interest and self-sustained learning as catalysts of development: A learning ecology perspective. Human Development 49: 193–224. https://doi.org/10.1159/000094368 .

Barry, M.M., M. D’Eath, and J. Sixsmith. 2013. Interventions for improving population health literacy: Insights from a rapid review of the evidence. Journal of Health Communication 18: 1507–1522. https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730.2013.840699 .

Barton, A.C., and E. Tan. 2009. Funds of knowledge and discourses and hybrid space. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 46: 50–73. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20269 .

Bear, J.B., and A.W. Woolley. 2011. The role of gender in team collaboration and performance. Interdisciplinary Science Reviews 36: 146–153. https://doi.org/10.1179/030801811X13013181961473 .

Bendor, J., and S.E. Page. 2019. Optimal team composition for tool-based problem solving. Journal of Economics & Management Strategy 28: 734–764. https://doi.org/10.1111/jems.12295 .

Berkes, F. 2007. Understanding uncertainty and reducing vulnerability: Lessons from resilience thinking. Natural Hazards 41: 283–295. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-006-9036-7 .

Berkes, F., and D. Jolly. 2002. Adapting to climate change: Social-ecological resilience in a Canadian western Arctic community. Conservation Ecology 5: 45.

Berkes, F., and H. Ross. 2013. Community resilience: Toward an integrated approach. Society & Natural Resources 26: 5–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2012.736605 .

Berkes, F., M.K. Berkes, and H. Fast. 2007. Collaborative integrated management in Canada’s north: The role of local and traditional knowledge and community-based monitoring. Coastal Management 35: 143–162.

Berkman, N.D., T.C. Davis, and L. McCormack. 2010. Health literacy: What is it? Journal of Health Communication 15: 9–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730.2010.499985 .

Bey, G., C. McDougall, and S. Schoedinger. 2020. Report on the NOAA office of education environmental literacy program community resilience education theory of change. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration . https://doi.org/10.25923/mh0g-5q69 .

Blumer, H. 1971. Social problems as collective behavior. Social Problems 18: 298–306.

Bodin, Ö. 2017. Collaborative environmental governance: Achieving collective action in social-ecological systems. Science . https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aan1114 .

Bolderdijk, J.W., M. Gorsira, K. Keizer, and L. Steg. 2013. Values determine the (in)effectiveness of informational interventions in promoting pro-environmental behavior. PLoS ONE 8: e83911. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0083911 .

Brabham, D.C. 2013. Crowdsourcing . Cambridge: MIT Press.

Book   Google Scholar  

Braus, J. (Ed.). 2011. Tools of engagement: A toolkit for engaging people in conservation. NAAEE/Audubon. https://cdn.naaee.org/sites/default/files/eepro/resource/files/toolsofengagement.pdf .

Brieger, S.A. 2019. Social identity and environmental concern: The importance of contextual effects. Environment and Behavior 51: 828–855. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916518756988 .

Briggs, J. 2005. The use of Indigenous knowledge in development: Problems and challenges. Progress in Development Studies 5: 99–114. https://doi.org/10.1191/1464993405ps105oa .

Briggs, J., and J. Sharp. 2004. Indigenous knowledges and development: A postcolonial caution. Third World Quarterly 25: 661–676. https://doi.org/10.1080/01436590410001678915 .

Bronfenbrenner, U. 1979. The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design . Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Bruce, C., and P. Chesterton. 2002. Constituting collective consciousness: Information literacy in university curricula. International Journal for Academic Development 7: 31–40. https://doi.org/10.1080/13601440210156457 .

Byerly, H., A. Balmford, P.J. Ferraro, C.H. Wagner, E. Palchak, S. Polasky, T.H. Ricketts, A.J. Schwartz, et al. 2018. Nudging pro-environmental behavior: Evidence and opportunities. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 16: 159–168. https://doi.org/10.1002/fee.1777 .

Canadas, M.J., A. Novais, and M. Marques. 2016. Wildfires, forest management and landowners’ collective action: A comparative approach at the local level. Land Use Policy 56: 179–188. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.04.035 .

Carden, L., and W. Wood. 2018. Habit formation and change. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences 20: 117–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2017.12.009 .

Chan, M. 2016. Psychological antecedents and motivational models of collective action: Examining the role of perceived effectiveness in political protest participation. Social Movement Studies 15: 305–321. https://doi.org/10.1080/14742837.2015.1096192 .

Charnley, S., E.C. Kelly, and A.P. Fischer. 2020. Fostering collective action to reduce wildfire risk across property boundaries in the American West. Environmental Research Letters 15: 025007. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ab639a .

Chawla, L., and D.F. Cushing. 2007. Education for strategic environmental behavior. Environmental Education Research 13: 437–452. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504620701581539 .

Chinn, D. 2011. Critical health literacy: A review and critical analysis. Social Science & Medicine 73: 60–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2011.04.004 .

Clark, C.R., J.E. Heimlich, N.M. Ardoin, and J. Braus. 2020. Using a Delphi study to clarify the landscape and core outcomes in environmental education. Environmental Education Research 26: 381–399. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2020.1727859 .

Clarke, M., Z. Ma, S.A. Snyder, and K. Floress. 2021. Factors influencing family forest owners’ interest in community-led collective invasive plant management. Environmental Management 67: 1088–1099. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-021-01454-1 .

Cruz, A.R., S.T. Selby, and W.H. Durham. 2018. Place-based education for environmental behavior: A ‘funds of knowledge’ and social capital approach. Environmental Education Research 24: 627–647. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2017.1311842 .

Curşeu, P.L., and H. Pluut. 2013. Student groups as learning entities: The effect of group diversity and teamwork quality on groups’ cognitive complexity. Studies in Higher Education 38: 87–103. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2011.565122 .

Cutter, S.L., L. Barnes, M. Berry, C. Burton, E. Evans, E. Tate, and J. Webb. 2008. A place-based model for understanding community resilience to natural disasters. Global Environmental Change 18: 598–606. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2008.07.013 .

Dale, A., K. Vella, S. Ryan, K. Broderick, R. Hill, R. Potts, and T. Brewer. 2020. Governing community-based natural resource management in Australia: International implications. Land 9: 234. https://doi.org/10.3390/land9070234 .

de Moor, J., and M. Wahlström. 2019. Narrating political opportunities: Explaining strategic adaptation in the climate movement. Theory and Society 48: 419–451. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11186-019-09347-3 .

DeCaro, D., and M. Stokes. 2008. Social-psychological principles of community-based conservation and conservancy motivation: Attaining goals within an autonomy-supportive environment. Conservation Biology 22: 1443–1451.

Djenontin, I.N.S., and A.M. Meadow. 2018. The art of co-production of knowledge in environmental sciences and management: Lessons from international practice. Environmental Management 61: 885–903. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-018-1028-3 .

Duncan, L.E. 2018. The psychology of collective action. In The Oxford handbook of personality and social psychology , ed. K. Deaux and M. Snyder. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Edwards, M., F. Wood, M. Davies, and A. Edwards. 2015. ‘Distributed health literacy’: Longitudinal qualitative analysis of the roles of health literacy mediators and social networks of people living with a long-term health condition. Health Expectations 18: 1180–1193. https://doi.org/10.1111/hex.12093 .

Emerson, K., T. Nabatchi, and S. Balogh. 2012. An integrative framework for collaborative governance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 22: 1–29.

Engeström, Y. 2001. Expansive learning at work: Toward an activity theoretical reconceptualization. Journal of Education and Work 14: 133–156. https://doi.org/10.1080/13639080020028747 .

Ensor, J., and B. Harvey. 2015. Social learning and climate change adaptation: Evidence for international development practice. Wires Climate Change 6: 509–522. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.348 .

Fanta, V., M. Šálek, and P. Sklenicka. 2019. How long do floods throughout the millennium remain in the collective memory? Nature Communications 10: 1105. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-09102-3 .

Feinstein, N.W. 2018. Collective science literacy: A key to community science capacity [Conference session]. American Association for the Advancement of Science Annual Meeting, Austin, TX, USA https://d32ogoqmya1dw8.cloudfront.net/files/earthconnections/collective_science_literacy_key.pdf .

Feola, G. 2015. Societal transformation in response to global environmental change: A review of emerging concepts. Ambio 44: 376–390. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2689741 .

Fernandez-Gimenez, M.E., H.L. Ballard, and V.E. Sturtevant. 2008. Adaptive management and social learning in collaborative and community-based monitoring: A study of five community-based forestry organizations in the western USA. Ecology and Society 13: 15.

Folke, C., T. Hahn, P. Olsson, and J. Norberg. 2005. Adaptive governance of social-ecological systems. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 30: 441–473. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.energy.30.050504.144511 .

Freedman, D.A., K.D. Bess, H.A. Tucker, D.L. Boyd, A.M. Tuchman, and K.A. Wallston. 2009. Public health literacy defined. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 36: 446–451. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2009.02.001 .

Freeman, R.B., and W. Huang. 2015. Collaborating with people like me: Ethnic coauthorship within the United States. Journal of Labor Economics 33: S289–S318.

Gadgil, M., F. Berkes, and C. Folke. 1993. Indigenous knowledge for biodiversity conservation. Ambio 22: 151–156.

Galaz, V., B. Crona, H. Österblom, P. Olsson, and C. Folke. 2012. Polycentric systems and interacting planetary boundaries—Emerging governance of climate change–ocean acidification–marine biodiversity. Ecological Economics 81: 21–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.11.012 .

Geiger, S.M., M. Geiger, and O. Wilhelm. 2019. Environment-specific vs general knowledge and their role in pro-environmental behavior. Frontiers in Psychology 10: 718. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00718 .

Gifford, R., C. Kormos, and A. McIntyre. 2011. Behavioral dimensions of climate change: Drivers, responses, barriers, and interventions. Wires Climate Change 2: 801–827. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.143 .

González, N., L.C. Moll, and C. Amanti. 2006. Funds of knowledge: Theorizing practices in households, communities, and classrooms . New York: Routledge.

Gordon, D.M. 2019. Measuring collective behavior: An ecological approach. Theory in Biosciences . https://doi.org/10.1007/s12064-019-00302-5 .

Gould, R.K., N.M. Ardoin, J.M. Thomsen, and N. Wyman Roth. 2019. Exploring connections between environmental learning and behavior through four everyday-life case studies. Environmental Education Research 25: 314–340.

Graham, S., A.L. Metcalf, N. Gill, R. Niemiec, C. Moreno, T. Bach, V. Ikutegbe, L. Hallstrom, et al. 2019. Opportunities for better use of collective action theory in research and governance for invasive species management. Conservation Biology 33: 275–287. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13266 .

Granovetter, M. 1978. Threshold models of collective behavior. American Journal of Sociology 83: 1420–1443.

Groulx, M., M.C. Brisbois, C.J. Lemieux, A. Winegardner, and L. Fishback. 2017. A role for nature-based citizen science in promoting individual and collective climate change action? A systematic review of learning outcomes. Science Communication 39: 45–76. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547016688324 .

Gutiérrez, K.D., and B. Rogoff. 2003. Cultural ways of learning: Individual traits or repertoires of practice. Educational Researcher 32: 19–25. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X032005019 .

Guzys, D., A. Kenny, V. Dickson-Swift, and G. Threlkeld. 2015. A critical review of population health literacy assessment. BMC Public Health 15: 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-015-1551-6 .

Halbwachs, M. 1992. On collective memory (L. A. Coser, Ed. & Trans.). University of Chicago Press. (Original works published 1941 and 1952).

Heikkila, T., S. Villamayor-Tomas, and D. Garrick. 2018. Bringing polycentric systems into focus for environmental governance. Environmental Policy and Governance 28: 207–211. https://doi.org/10.1002/eet.1809 .

Heimlich, J.E., and N.M. Ardoin. 2008. Understanding behavior to understand behavior change: A literature review. Environmental Education Research 14: 215–237. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504620802148881 .

Hill, R., F.J. Walsh, J. Davies, A. Sparrow, M. Mooney, R.M. Wise, and M. Tengö. 2020. Knowledge co-production for Indigenous adaptation pathways: Transform post-colonial articulation complexes to empower local decision-making. Global Environmental Change 65: 102161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2020.102161 .

Hollweg, K.S., J. Taylor, R.W. Bybee, T.J. Marcinkowski, W.C. McBeth, and P. Zoido. 2011. Developing a framework for assessing environmental literacy: Executive summary . North American Association for Environmental Education. https://cdn.naaee.org/sites/default/files/envliteracyexesummary.pdf .

Hovardas, T. 2020. A social learning approach for stakeholder engagement in large carnivore conservation and management. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution 8: 436. https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2020.525278 .

Jagers, S.C., N. Harring, Å. Löfgren, M. Sjöstedt, F. Alpizar, B. Brülde, D. Langlet, A. Nilsson, et al. 2020. On the preconditions for large-scale collective action. Ambio 49: 1282–1296. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-019-01284-w .

Jordan, A., D. Huitema, H. van Asselt, and J. Forster. 2018. Governing climate change: Polycentricity in action? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Jörg, T. 2011. New thinking in complexity for the social sciences and humanities: A generative, transdisciplinary approach . New York: Springer Science & Business Media.

Jost, J.T., J. Becker, D. Osborne, and V. Badaan. 2017. Missing in (collective) action: Ideology, system justification, and the motivational antecedents of two types of protest behavior. Current Directions in Psychological Science 26: 99–108. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721417690633 .

Jull, J., A. Giles, and I.D. Graham. 2017. Community-based participatory research and integrated knowledge translation: Advancing the co-creation of knowledge. Implementation Science 12: 150. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-017-0696-3 .

Kahan, D.M., H. Jenkins-Smith, and D. Braman. 2011. Cultural cognition of scientific consensus. Journal of Risk Research 14: 147–174. https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2010.511246 .

Kania, J., and M. Kramer. 2011. Collective impact. Stanford Social Innovation Review 9: 36–41.

Karachiwalla, R., and F. Pinkow. 2021. Understanding crowdsourcing projects: A review on the key design elements of a crowdsourcing initiative. Creativity and Innovation Management 30: 563–584. https://doi.org/10.1111/caim.12454 .

Kellert, S.R., J.N. Mehta, S.A. Ebbin, and L.L. Lichtenfeld. 2000. Community natural resource management: Promise, rhetoric, and reality. Society & Natural Resources 13: 705–715.

Klein, J.T. 1990. Interdisciplinarity: History, theory, and practice . Detroit: Wayne State University Press.

Knapp, C.N., R.S. Reid, M.E. Fernández-Giménez, J.A. Klein, and K.A. Galvin. 2019. Placing transdisciplinarity in context: A review of approaches to connect scholars, society and action. Sustainability 11: 4899. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11184899 .

Koliou, M., J.W. van de Lindt, T.P. McAllister, B.R. Ellingwood, M. Dillard, and H. Cutler. 2020. State of the research in community resilience: Progress and challenges. Sustainable and Resilient Infrastructure 5: 131–151. https://doi.org/10.1080/23789689.2017.1418547 .

Kopnina, H. 2016. Of big hegemonies and little tigers: Ecocentrism and environmental justice. The Journal of Environmental Education 47: 139–150. https://doi.org/10.1080/00958964.2015.1048502 .

Krasny, M.E., M. Mukute, O. Aguilar, M.P. Masilela, and L. Olvitt. 2017. Community environmental education. In Urban environmental education review , ed. A. Russ and M.E. Krasny, 124–132. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Lave, J. 1991. Situating learning in communities of practice.

Lave, J., and E. Wenger. 1991. Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lee, S., and W.-M. Roth. 2003. Science and the “good citizen”: Community-based scientific literacy. Science, Technology, & Human Values 28: 403–424. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243903028003003 .

Lévy, P., and R. Bononno. 1997. Collective intelligence: Mankind’s emerging world in cyberspace . New York: Perseus Books.

Lloyd, A. 2005. No man (or woman) is an island: Information literacy, affordances and communities of practice. The Australian Library Journal 54: 230–237. https://doi.org/10.1080/00049670.2005.10721760 .

Lopez-Gunn, E. 2003. The role of collective action in water governance: A comparative study of groundwater user associations in La Mancha aquifers in Spain. Water International 28: 367–378. https://doi.org/10.1080/02508060308691711 .

Lu, J.G., A.C. Hafenbrack, P.W. Eastwick, D.J. Wang, W.W. Maddux, and A.D. Galinsky. 2017. “Going out” of the box: Close intercultural friendships and romantic relationships spark creativity, workplace innovation, and entrepreneurship. Journal of Applied Psychology 102: 1091–1108. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000212 .

Lubeck, A., A. Metcalf, C. Beckman, L. Yung, and J. Angle. 2019. Collective factors drive individual invasive species control behaviors: Evidence from private lands in Montana, USA. Ecology and Society . https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-10897-240232 .

Mackay, C.M.L., M.T. Schmitt, A.E. Lutz, and J. Mendel. 2021. Recent developments in the social identity approach to the psychology of climate change. Current Opinion in Psychology 42: 95–101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2021.04.009 .

Magis, K. 2010. Community resilience: An indicator of social sustainability. Society & Natural Resources 23: 401–416. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920903305674 .

Manfredo, M.J., T.L. Teel, and A.M. Dietsch. 2016. Implications of human value shift and persistence for biodiversity conservation. Conservation Biology 30: 287–296. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12619 .

Marshall, G.R., M.J. Coleman, B.M. Sindel, I.J. Reeve, and P.J. Berney. 2016. Collective action in invasive species control, and prospects for community-based governance: The case of serrated tussock ( Nassella trichotoma ) in New South Wales, Australia. Land Use Policy 56: 100–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.04.028 .

Mårtensson, L., and G. Hensing. 2012. Health literacy: A heterogeneous phenomenon: A literature review. Scandinavian Journal of Caring Sciences 26: 151–160. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6712.2011.00900.x .

Martin, C., and C. Steinkuehler. 2010. Collective information literacy in massively multiplayer online games. E-Learning and Digital Media 7: 355–365. https://doi.org/10.2304/elea.2010.7.4.355 .

Masson, T., and I. Fritsche. 2021. We need climate change mitigation and climate change mitigation needs the ‘We’: A state-of-the-art review of social identity effects motivating climate change action. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences 42: 89–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2021.04.006 .

Massung, E., D. Coyle, K.F. Cater, M. Jay, and C. Preist. 2013. Using crowdsourcing to support pro-environmental community activism. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . https://doi.org/10.1145/2470654.2470708 .

McAdam, D. 2017. Social movement theory and the prospects for climate change activism in the United States. Annual Review of Political Science 20: 189–208. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-polisci-052615-025801 .

McAdam, D., and H. Boudet. 2012. Putting social movements in their place: Explaining opposition to energy projects in the United States, 2000–2005 . Cambridge University Press.

McKenzie-Mohr, D. 2011. Fostering sustainable behavior: An introduction to community-based social marketing (3rd edn.). New Society Publishers.

McKinley, D.C., A.J. Miller-Rushing, H.L. Ballard, R. Bonney, H. Brown, S.C. Cook-Patton, D.M. Evans, R.A. French, et al. 2017. Citizen science can improve conservation science, natural resource management, and environmental protection. Biological Conservation 208: 15–28.

Miller, D.L. 2014. Introduction to collective behavior and collective action (3rd ed.). Waveland Press.

Mills, J., D. Gibbon, J. Ingram, M. Reed, C. Short, and J. Dwyer. 2011. Organising collective action for effective environmental management and social learning in Wales. The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension 17: 69–83. https://doi.org/10.1080/1389224X.2011.536356 .

Mistry, J., and A. Berardi. 2016. Bridging Indigenous and scientific knowledge. Science 352: 1274–1275. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaf1160 .

Mochizuki, Y., and A. Bryan. 2015. Climate change education in the context of education for sustainable development: Rationale and principles. Journal of Education for Sustainable Development 9: 4–26. https://doi.org/10.1177/0973408215569109 .

Monroe, M.C. 2003. Two avenues for encouraging conservation behaviors. Human Ecology Review 10: 113–125.

Nasir, N.S., M.M. de Royston, B. Barron, P. Bell, R. Pea, R. Stevens, and S. Goldman. 2020. Learning pathways: How learning is culturally organized. In Handbook of the cultural foundations of learning , ed. N.S. Nasir, C.D. Lee, R. Pea, and M.M. de Royston, 195–211. Routledge.

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Science literacy: Concepts, contexts, and consequences . https://doi.org/10.17226/23595

National Research Council. 2015. Collective behavior: From cells to societies: Interdisciplinary research team summaries . National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/21737

Niemiec, R.M., N.M. Ardoin, C.B. Wharton, and G.P. Asner G.P. 2016. Motivating residents to combat invasive species on private lands: Social norms and community reciprocity. Ecology and Society , 21. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-08362-210230

Niemiec, R.M., S. McCaffrey, and M.S. Jones. 2020. Clarifying the degree and type of public good collective action problem posed by natural resource management challenges. Ecology and Society 25: 30. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-11483-250130 .

Norström, A.V., C. Cvitanovic, M.F. Löf, S. West, C. Wyborn, P. Balvanera, A.T. Bednarek, E.M. Bennett, et al. 2020. Principles for knowledge co-production in sustainability research. Nature Sustainability 3: 182–190. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-019-0448-2 .

Olick, J.K. 1999. Collective memory: The two cultures. Sociological Theory 17: 333–348. https://doi.org/10.1111/0735-2751.00083 .

Ostrom, E. 1990. Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action . Cambridge University Press.

Ostrom, E. 2000. Collective action and the evolution of social norms. Journal of Economic Perspectives 14: 137–158. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.14.3.137 .

Ostrom, E. 2009. A general framework for analyzing sustainability of social-ecological systems. Science 325: 419–422. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1172133 .

Ostrom, E. 2010. Polycentric systems for coping with collective action and global environmental change. Global Environmental Change 20: 550–557. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2010.07.004 .

Ostrom, E. 2012. Nested externalities and polycentric institutions: Must we wait for global solutions to climate change before taking actions at other scales? Economic Theory 49: 353–369. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00199-010-0558-6 .

Ostrom, E., and T.K. Ahn. 2009. The meaning of social capital and its link to collective action. In Handbook of social capital: The troika of sociology, political science and economics , ed. G.T. Svendsen and G.L.H. Svendsen, 17–35. Edward Elgar Publishing.

Papen, U. 2009. Literacy, learning and health: A social practices view of health literacy. Literacy and Numeracy Studies . https://doi.org/10.5130/lns.v0i0.1275 .

Park, R.E. 1927. Human nature and collective behavior. American Journal of Sociology 32: 733–741.

Paul, A.M. 2021. The extended mind: The power of thinking outside the brain . Boston: Mariner Books.

Pawilen, G.T. 2021. Integrating Indigenous knowledge in the Philippine elementary science curriculum: Integrating Indigenous knowledge. International Journal of Curriculum and Instruction 13: 1148–1160.

Prager, K. 2015. Agri-environmental collaboratives for landscape management in Europe. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 12: 59–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2014.10.009 .

Pretty, J., and H. Ward. 2001. Social capital and the environment. World Development 29: 209–227. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0305-750X(00)00098-X .

Putnam, R.D. 2020. Bowling alone: Revised and updated: The collapse and revival of American community . Anniversary. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Raymond, L. 2006. Cooperation without trust: Overcoming collective action barriers to endangered species protection. Policy Studies Journal 34: 37–57. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0072.2006.00144.x .

Reed, M.S., A.C. Evely, G. Cundill, I. Fazey, J. Glass, A. Laing, J. Newig, B. Parrish, et al. 2010. What is social learning? Ecology and Society 15: 12.

Reicher, S., R. Spears, and S.A. Haslam. 2010. The social identity approach in social psychology. In The SAGE handbook of identities (pp. 45–62). SAGE. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446200889

Reid, A. 2019. Blank, blind, bald and bright spots in environmental education research. Environmental Education Research 25: 157–171. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2019.1615735 .

Rogoff, B. 2003. The cultural nature of human development (Reprint edition) . Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Roth, C.E. 1992. Environmental literacy: Its roots, evolution and directions in the 1990s . http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED348235

Roth, W.-M. 2003. Scientific literacy as an emergent feature of collective human praxis. Journal of Curriculum Studies 35: 9–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220270210134600 .

Roth, W.-M., and A.C. Barton. 2004. Rethinking scientific literacy . London: Psychology Press.

Roth, W.-M., and S. Lee. 2002. Scientific literacy as collective praxis. Public Understanding of Science 11: 33–56. https://doi.org/10.1088/0963-6625/11/1/302 .

Roth, W.-M., and S. Lee. 2004. Science education as/for participation in the community. Science Education 88: 263–291.

Roth, W.-M., and Y.-J. Lee. 2007. “Vygotsky’s neglected legacy”: Cultural-historical activity theory. Review of Educational Research 77: 186–232.

Sadoff, C.W., and D. Grey. 2005. Cooperation on international rivers: A continuum for securing and sharing benefits. Water International 30: 420–427.

Samerski, S. 2019. Health literacy as a social practice: Social and empirical dimensions of knowledge on health and healthcare. Social Science & Medicine 226: 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2019.02.024 .

Sawyer, R.K. 2014. The future of learning: Grounding educational innovation in the learning sciences. In The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences , ed. R.K. Sawyer, 726–746. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Saxe, J.G. n.d.. The blind man and the elephant . All Poetry. Retrieved October 6, 2020, from https://allpoetry.com/The-Blind-Man-And-The-Elephant .

Scheepers, D., and N. Ellemers. 2019. Social identity theory. In Social psychology in action: Evidence-based interventions from theory to practice , ed. K. Sassenberg and M.L.W. Vliek, 129–143. New York: Springer International Publishing.

Schipper, E.L.F., N.K. Dubash, and Y. Mulugetta. 2021. Climate change research and the search for solutions: Rethinking interdisciplinarity. Climatic Change 168: 18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-021-03237-3 .

Schoerning, E. 2018. A no-conflict approach to informal science education increases community science literacy and engagement. Journal of Science Communication, Doi 10: 17030205.

Schultz, P.W. 2014. Strategies for promoting proenvironmental behavior: Lots of tools but few instructions. European Psychologist 19: 107–117. https://doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040/a000163 .

Sharifi, A. 2016. A critical review of selected tools for assessing community resilience. Ecological Indicators 69: 629–647. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2016.05.023 .

Sherrieb, K., F.H. Norris, and S. Galea. 2010. Measuring capacities for community resilience. Social Indicators Research 99: 227–247. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-010-9576-9 .

Singh, R.K., A. Singh, K.K. Zander, S. Mathew, and A. Kumar. 2021. Measuring successful processes of knowledge co-production for managing climate change and associated environmental stressors: Adaptation policies and practices to support Indian farmers. Journal of Environmental Management 282: 111679. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.111679 .

Sloman, S., and P. Fernbach. 2017. The knowledge illusion: Why we never think alone . New York: Riverhead Books.

Smelser, N.J. 2011. Theory of collective behavior . Quid Pro Books. (Original work published 1962).

Sørensen, K., S. Van den Broucke, J. Fullam, G. Doyle, J. Pelikan, Z. Slonska, H. Brand, and (HLS-EU) Consortium Health Literacy Project European. 2012. Health literacy and public health: A systematic review and integration of definitions and models. BMC Public Health 12: 80. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-12-80 .

Spitzer, W., and J. Fraser. 2020. Advancing community science literacy. Journal of Museum Education 45: 5–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/10598650.2020.1720403 .

Stables, A., and K. Bishop. 2001. Weak and strong conceptions of environmental literacy: Implications for environmental education. Environmental Education Research 7: 89. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504620125643 .

Stern, M.J., R.B. Powell, and N.M. Ardoin. 2008. What difference does it make? Assessing outcomes from participation in a residential environmental education program. The Journal of Environmental Education 39: 31–43. https://doi.org/10.3200/JOEE.39.4.31-43 .

Stets, J.E., and P.J. Burke. 2000. Identity theory and social identity theory. Social Psychology Quarterly 63: 224–237. https://doi.org/10.2307/2695870 .

Sturmer, S., and B. Simon. 2004. Collective action: Towards a dual-pathway model. European Review of Social Psychology 15: 59–99. https://doi.org/10.1080/10463280340000117 .

Sullivan, A., A. York, D. White, S. Hall, and S. Yabiku. 2017. De jure versus de facto institutions: Trust, information, and collective efforts to manage the invasive mile-a-minute weed (Mikania micrantha). International Journal of the Commons 11: 171–199. https://doi.org/10.18352/ijc.676 .

Sunstein, C.R. 2008. Infotopia: How many minds produce knowledge . Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Surowiecki, J. 2005. The wisdom of crowds . New York: Anchor.

Swim, J.K., S. Clayton, and G.S. Howard. 2011. Human behavioral contributions to climate change: Psychological and contextual drivers. American Psychologist 66: 251–264.

Thaker, J., P. Howe, A. Leiserowitz, and E. Maibach. 2019. Perceived collective efficacy and trust in government influence public engagement with climate change-related water conservation policies. Environmental Communication 13: 681–699. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2018.1438302 .

Tudge, J.R.H., and P.A. Winterhoff. 1993. Vygotsky, Piaget, and Bandura: Perspectives on the relations between the social world and cognitive development. Human Development 36: 61–81. https://doi.org/10.1159/000277297 .

Turner, R.H., and L.M. Killian. 1987. Collective behavior , 3rd ed. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.

Turner, R.H., N.J. Smelser, and L.M. Killian. 2020. Collective behaviour. In Encyclopedia Britannica . Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc. https://www.britannica.com/science/collective-behaviour .

van der Linden, S. 2014. Towards a new model for communicating climate change. In Understanding and governing sustainable tourism mobility , ed. S. Cohen, J. Higham, P. Peeters, and S. Gössling, 263–295. Milton Park: Routledge.

van Zomeren, M., T. Postmes, and R. Spears. 2008. Toward an integrative social identity model of collective action: A quantitative research synthesis of three socio-psychological perspectives. Psychological Bulletin 134: 504–535. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.134.4.504 .

Vygotsky, L.S. 1980. Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes . Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Waldron, F., B. Ruane, R. Oberman, and S. Morris. 2019. Geographical process or global injustice? Contrasting educational perspectives on climate change. Environmental Education Research 25: 895–911. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2016.1255876 .

Wals, A.E.J., M. Brody, J. Dillon, and R.B. Stevenson. 2014. Convergence between science and environmental education. Science 344: 583–584.

Wenger, E.C., and W.M. Snyder. 2000. Communities of practice: The organizational frontier. Harvard Business Review 78: 139–146.

Weschsler, D. 1971. Concept of collective intelligence. American Psychologist 26: 904–907. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0032223 .

Wheaton, M., A. Kannan, and N.M. Ardoin. 2018. Environmental literacy: Setting the stage (Environmental Literacy Brief, Vol. 1). Social Ecology Lab, Stanford University. https://ed.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/news/images/stanfordsocialecologylab-brief-1.pdf .

Wojcik, D.J., N.M. Ardoin, and R.K. Gould. 2021. Using social network analysis to explore and expand our understanding of a robust environmental learning landscape. Environmental Education Research 27: 1263–1283.

Wood, W., and D. Rünger. 2016. Psychology of habit. Annual Review of Psychology 67: 289–314. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-122414-033417 .

Woolley, A.W., C.F. Chabris, A. Pentland, N. Hashmi, and T.W. Malone. 2010. Evidence for a collective intelligence factor in the performance of human groups. Science 330: 686–688. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1193147 .

Download references

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to Maria DiGiano, Anna Lee, and Becca Shareff for their feedback and contributions to early drafts of this paper. We appreciate the research and writing assistance supporting this paper provided by various members of the Stanford Social Ecology Lab, especially: Brennecke Gale, Pari Ghorbani, Regina Kong, Naomi Ray, and Austin Stack.

This work was supported by a grant from the Pisces Foundation.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Emmett Interdisciplinary Program in Environment and Resources, Graduate School of Education, and Woods Institute for the Environment, Stanford University, 233 Littlefield Hall, Stanford, CA, 94305, USA

Nicole M. Ardoin

Social Ecology Lab, Graduate School of Education and Woods Institute for the Environment, Stanford University, 233 Littlefield Hall, Stanford, CA, 94305, USA

Alison W. Bowers

Emmett Interdisciplinary Program in Environment and Resources, School of Earth, Energy and Environmental Sciences, Stanford University, 473 Via Ortega, Suite 226, Stanford, CA, 94305, USA

Mele Wheaton

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nicole M. Ardoin .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper

Additional information

Publisher's note.

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

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, 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 changes were made. 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/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Ardoin, N.M., Bowers, A.W. & Wheaton, M. Leveraging collective action and environmental literacy to address complex sustainability challenges. Ambio 52 , 30–44 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-022-01764-6

Download citation

Received : 11 July 2021

Revised : 11 January 2022

Accepted : 22 June 2022

Published : 09 August 2022

Issue Date : January 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-022-01764-6

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

• Collective action
• Environmental literacy
• Social movements
• Sustainability
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

• Systematic Review
• Open access
• Published: 13 May 2024

Sarcopenia and sarcopenic obesity among older adults in the nordic countries: a scoping review

• Fereshteh Baygi 1   na1 ,
• Sussi Friis Buhl 1   na1 ,
• Trine Thilsing 1 ,
• Jens Søndergaard 1 &
• Jesper Bo Nielsen 1  

BMC Geriatrics volume  24 , Article number:  421 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

351 Accesses

Metrics details

Sarcopenia and sarcopenic obesity (SO) are age-related syndromes that may compromise physical and mental health among older adults. The Nordic countries differ from other regions on prevalence of disease, life-style behavior, and life expectancy, which may impact prevalence of sarcopenia and SO. Therefore, the aim of this study is to review the available evidence and gaps within this field in the Nordic countries.

PubMed, Embase, and Web of science (WOS) were searched up to February 2023. In addition, grey literature and reference lists of included studies were searched. Two independent researcher assessed papers and extracted data.

Thirty-three studies out of 6,363 searched studies were included in this scoping review. Overall prevalence of sarcopenia varied from 0.9 to 58.5%. A wide prevalence range was still present for community-dwelling older adults when definition criteria and setting were considered. The prevalence of SO ranged from 4 to 11%, according to the only study on this field. Based on the included studies, potential risk factors for sarcopenia include malnutrition, low physical activity, specific diseases (e.g., diabetes), inflammation, polypharmacy, and aging, whereas increased levels of physical activity and improved dietary intake may reduce the risk of sarcopenia. The few available interventions for sarcopenia were mainly focused on resistance training with/without nutritional supplements (e.g., protein, vitamin D).

The findings of our study revealed inadequate research on SO but an increasing trend in the number of studies on sarcopenia. However, most of the included studies had descriptive cross-sectional design, small sample size, and applied different diagnostic criteria. Therefore, larger well-designed cohort studies that adhere to uniform recent guidelines are required to capture a full picture of these two age-related medical conditions in Nordic countries, and plan for prevention/treatment accordingly.

Peer Review reports

The number of older adults with age-related disorders is expected to increase worldwide [ 1 , 2 ]. Sarcopenia and sarcopenic obesity (SO) are both age-related syndromes that may compromise the physical and mental health of older adults and increase their need for health care services in old age [ 3 , 4 ], and this may challenge the sustainability of health care systems economically and by shortage of health care personnel [ 5 ].

Sarcopenia is characterized by low muscle mass in combination with low muscle strength [ 4 ]. SO is characterized by the co-existence of obesity (excessive adipose tissue) and sarcopenia [ 3 ]. Sarcopenia and SO are both associated with physical disability, risk of falls, morbidity, reduced quality of life and early mortality [ 4 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 ]. In SO the consequences of sarcopenia and obesity are combined and maximized [ 4 , 6 , 7 , 8 ].

Etiology of sarcopenia and SO is multifactorial and closely linked to multimorbidity [ 3 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 ]. Nevertheless, lifestyle and behavioral components particularly diet and physical activity, are important interrelated factors that potentially can be modified. Physical inactivity and sedentary behavior may accelerate age-related loss of muscle mass, reduce energy expenditure, and increase risk of obesity [ 3 , 11 ]. In addition, weight cycling (the fluctuations in weight following dieting and regain) and an unbalanced diet (particularly inadequate protein intake) may accelerate loss of muscle mass and increase severity of sarcopenia and SO in older adults [ 3 , 12 ]. International guideline for the treatment of sarcopenia emphasizes the importance of resistance training potentially in combination with nutritional supplementation to improve muscle mass and physical function [ 13 ]. Similar therapeutic approach is suggested for treatment of SO [ 14 ]. However, more research is needed to confirm optimal treatment of SO [ 14 ].

According to a recently published meta-analysis the global prevalence of sarcopenia ranged from 10 to 27% in populations of older adults ≥ 60 years [ 15 ]. Further the global prevalence of SO among older adults was 11% [ 8 ]. So, sarcopenia and SO are prevalent conditions, with multiple negative health outcomes and should be given special attention [ 16 ]. Despite the large burden on patients and health care systems, the awareness of the importance of skeletal muscle maintenance in obesity is low among clinicians and scientists [ 3 , 16 ].

A recent meta-analysis on publication trends revealed that despite an increase in global research on sarcopenia, the Nordic countries were only limitedly represented [ 6 ]. Nordic countries may differ from other regions on aspects associated with the prevalence and trajectory of sarcopenia and SO and challenge the representativeness of research findings from other parts of the world. These include a different prevalence pattern of noncommunicable diseases [ 17 ], different life-style behavior and life-style associated risk factors [ 15 , 18 ], and higher life expectancy [ 18 ].

The Nordic countries including Sweden, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Denmark, and three autonomous areas (Åland Islands, Greenland and Faroe Islands) share common elements of social and economic policies such as a comprehensive publicly financed health care system [ 18 , 19 ]. Additionally, these countries have a strong tradition of collaboration including a common vision of a socially sustainable region by promoting equal health and inclusive participation in society for older adults [ 20 ]. Therefore, more insight into the etiology, prevalence, and risk factors for sarcopenia and SO among older adults is a prerequisite for the development and implementation of effective strategies to prevent and treat these complex geriatric conditions in this geographic region. So, the aim of this study is to conduct a scoping review to systematically identify and map the available evidence while also addressing knowledge gaps and exploring the following research questions: (1) What are the prevalence of sarcopenia and SO in older adults living in the Nordic countries? (2) Which risk factors or contributing conditions are involved in the development of sarcopenia and SO in the Nordic Countries? (3) Which interventions to prevent or counteract negative health outcomes of sarcopenia and SO have been tested or implemented among older adults living in the Nordic countries?

Identification of relevant studies

The development and reporting of this review were done by following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines [ 21 ].

The literature search was developed to target three main areas: Sarcopenia, sarcopenic obesity, and aging (See Appendix 1 for full search strategy). All studies published before the end of February 2023 were included in this scoping review. The optimal sensitivity of search was obtained by simultaneous search of the following databases: PubMed, Embase, and Web of science (WOS). Additionally, a detailed search for grey literature was performed in relevant databases (e.g., Research Portal Denmark, Libris, Oria, Research.fi). Besides, reference lists of the included studies were reviewed to identify eligible studies. Duplicates and non-peer reviewed evidence (e.g., PhD thesis) were excluded but if the latter contained published articles of relevance, these were included. If more than one publication on similar outcomes (e.g., prevalence) were based on a single study, just one publication was included. Data were extracted from large studies with combined data from several countries only when findings were presented separately for the Nordic countries.

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

The inclusion criteria were as follow : Broad selection criteria were used to be comprehensive: (1) studies with any outcome (e.g., prevalence, risk factors, etc.) to address our research questions on sarcopenia and SO, (2) studies on subjects with age ≥ 60 years in any type of settings (e.g., community, nursing homes, general practice, hospital, outpatients, homecare, etc.), (3) studies using any definition of sarcopenia and SO without restriction for criteria and cutoff values, (4) all type of study designs (e.g., randomized control trials, cohort studies, cross-sectional, etc.), (5) studies should be conducted in the Nordic countries The exclusion criteria are as follow : (1) studies without relevant outcome to sarcopenia or SO, (2) studies without sufficient information to determine eligibility.

Study selection and data extraction

Two independent researchers screened literature and conducted data extraction. Any discrepancies between them were resolved through discussion.

First, duplicates were removed by using EndNote 20.6 software, then titles and abstracts were screened to narrow down the list of potentially eligible studies. Finally, the full text review was done to examine in detail the studies that were not excluded in first step. For more clarification, the reasons for the exclusion were recorded (Fig.  1 ).

PRISMA diagram for searching resources

The following information was extracted: (1) study characteristics (e.g., first author’s name, country, year of publication), (2) characteristics of the target population (e.g., age, sex), (3) study design, setting, intervention duration and follow-up time (if applicable), measurements, tools, criteria, and results.

Study selection

A combined total of 6,358 studies were identified through the initial electronic database and grey literature searches. An additional five articles were identified through other sources (citation searching). After removing duplication, 3,464 articles remained. A total of 3107 articles were excluded based on screening titles and abstracts. Out of the remaining 357 studies, 324 were excluded after the full-text review. Finally, 33 studies met our inclusion criteria and were included in this current scoping review [ 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 ] (Fig.  1 ).

Study characteristics

Table  1 summarized characteristics of the included studies.

The number of documents showed an increasing trend between 2020 and 2021. A peak in the number of publications was observed in 2021 (24.2% of all documents). All the studies were conducted across four (Denmark, Norway, Sweden, and Finland) out of the five Nordic countries and three autonomous areas. The highest contribution in this field was made by Sweden ( n  = 12).

Most studies were conducted in community-dwelling settings [ 22 , 23 , 24 , 28 , 30 , 31 , 35 , 36 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 42 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 54 ]. Seven studies included patients with acute diseases (hospital-setting) [ 26 , 27 , 33 , 37 , 50 , 51 , 52 ], while four studies included patients with chronic conditions (out-patient setting) [ 25 , 32 , 41 , 44 ], and one study including nursing-home residents [ 34 ]. In terms of study design, most of the studies were observation studies with a cross-sectional or longitudinal design ( 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 33 , 34 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 ), while three studies [ 32 , 35 , 46 ] applied interventions. It appears, however, that one study [ 32 ] out of the above three interventions is sub-project conducted within the framework of larger intervention program. Sample size ranged from 49 in a cross-sectional case control study [ 52 ] to 3334 in a cohort study [ 30 ].

Five studies were among males only [ 22 , 24 , 36 , 45 , 53 ] and three studies included females only [ 38 , 47 , 54 ]. The rest of the studies had a mixed sample. Top subject area was sarcopenia (31 out of the 33 included studies), and on this subject, publications were categorized into the following research areas (with some studies addressing more areas): prevalence [ 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 29 , 30 , 33 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 40 , 42 , 44 , 45 , 47 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 ], risk factors [ 24 , 27 , 28 , 30 , 31 , 34 , 38 , 40 , 42 , 44 , 47 , 49 , 50 , 51 ], and effectiveness of interventions on sarcopenia or indicator of sarcopenia [ 32 , 35 , 46 ].

In most studies sarcopenia was defined according to the criteria set by the European Working Group on Sarcopenia in Older People in the updated version from 2019 (EWGSOP2) ( n  = 15) or the original version from 2010 (EWGSOP) ( n  = 14). However, in some studies multiple criteria such as EWGSOP, EWGSOP2, and National Institutes of Health Sarcopenia Project definition (FNIH) were applied [ 27 , 39 , 43 ], and in other studies alternative criteria were used [ 26 , 33 , 35 , 45 , 57 ].

Different assessment methods of muscle mass including Dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) [ 22 , 24 , 25 , 27 , 29 , 30 , 32 , 33 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 52 , 53 , 54 ], Bioelectrical Impedance Analysis (BIA) [ 28 , 31 , 34 , 44 , 48 , 49 ], Bioimpedance Spectroscopy (BIS) [ 35 , 42 , 43 ], Computed Tomography (CT) [ 33 ], and Computed Tomography Angiogram (CTA) [ 26 ] were used in the included studies.

SO were defined by the co-existence of sarcopenia with obesity. Studies on SO used the EWGSOP2 criteria [ 39 ], or the EWGSOP2 criteria for hand grip strength only (probable sarcopenia) [ 23 ] in combination with obesity estimated from BMI cut points [ 23 , 39 ], waist circumference [ 23 , 39 ], and fat mass percentage [ 39 ]. Lastly, one study used measures of body composition measures that reflect adiposity as estimates of SO [ 48 ].

Four studies reported the prevalence of “probable sarcopenia” [ 23 , 30 , 36 , 45 ], while two studies reported the prevalence of sarcopenia and comorbidities (e.g., osteopenia, pre-frailty, malnutrition) [ 33 , 40 ].

Narrative synthesis

Due to the heterogeneity of the studies in definition of sarcopenia, settings, and sample size, the overall reported prevalence was variable and ranged from 0.9% [ 54 ] to 58.5% [ 26 ]. However, according to the most commonly used criteria (EWGSOP2) the highest (46%) and lowest (1%) prevalence of sarcopenia was reported in Sweden among inpatients in geriatric care [ 27 ], and community-dwelling older adults [ 30 ], respectively.

Prevalence of sarcopenia according to population and definition criteria is illustrated in Table  2 . Higher prevalence rates of sarcopenia were found in females compared to males among community-dwelling older adults [ 49 ] and in older adults acutely admitted to hospital [ 51 ]. Further, acutely admitted female patients also presented with more severe sarcopenia compared to male patients [ 51 ].

Frequency of sarcopenia was higher (9.1–40.0%) in patients with diabetes (with and without complications of charcot osteoarthropathy), compared to age-matched healthy adults [ 52 ].

The prevalence of “probable sarcopenia” ranged between 20.4% (reduced muscle strength only) and 38.1% (fulfilling one of the following criteria: reduced muscle strength, reduced muscle mass, or low physical function) in Finnish community-dwelling adults [ 23 , 36 ], while longitudinal studies on Swedish community-dwelling old (70 years) and very old adults (≥ 85 years) the prevalence of “probable sarcopenia” (reduced muscle strength only) ranged from 1.8 to 73%, respectively [ 30 , 45 ]. Lastly, in a Swedish study among nursing home residents the prevalence of probable sarcopenia was 44% (evaluated by an impaired chair stand test) [ 34 ].

Prevalence of Osteosarcopenia (sarcopenia and osteoporosis) was 1.5% [ 36 ], and the prevalence of co-occurrence of all three following conditions: pre-frail, malnutrition, and sarcopenia was 7% [ 34 ].

We only identified two studies with prevalence of SO [ 39 ] and probable SO [ 23 ]. The prevalence of SO in a Swedish population was 4% and 11% in females and males, respectively, while the prevalence of probable SO among Finnish community-dwelling ranged between 5.8% and 12.6%, depending on the criteria to define the obesity (e.g., BMI, waist circumference, etc.) [ 23 ].

Several studies investigated aspects of etiology and risk factors for sarcopenia [ 24 , 27 , 28 , 30 , 31 , 34 , 36 , 38 , 40 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 47 , 49 , 50 , 51 ] and one study focused on SO [ 49 ]. Higher physical activity was associated with a decreased likelihood of sarcopenia [ 30 ]. In addition, adhering to world health organization (WHO) guidlines for physical activity and the Nordic nutritional recommendations for protein intake was positively associated with greater physical function and lower fat mass in older female community-dwellers [ 38 ]. In older adults who are physically active, eating a healthy diet (based on the frequency of intake of favorable food like fish, fruits, vegetables, and whole grains versus unfavorable foods like red/processed meats, desserts/sweets/sugar-sweetened beverages, and fried potatoes) was associated with lower risk of sarcopenia [ 28 ]. Further, among older adults who already meet the physical activity guidelines, additional engagement in muscle-strengthening activities was associated with a lower sarcopenia risk score and improved muscle mass and chair rise time [ 31 ].

Associations between sarcopenia, risk of sarcopenia and malnutrition or nutritional status was identified in geriatric patients [ 27 , 51 ], older patients with hip fracture [ 50 ], nursing home residents [ 34 ] and in community-dwelling older adults [ 49 ]. Moreover, the importance of nutritional intake was investigated in the following studies [ 24 , 36 , 47 ]. A study among community-dwelling men revealed an inverse association between total energy intake, protein intake (total, plant, and fish protein), intake of dietary fibers, fat (total and unsaturated), and vitamin D with sarcopenia status [ 36 ]. In a cohort of 71-year-old men a dietary pattern characterized by high consumption of fruit, vegetables, poultry, rice and pasta was associated with lower prevalence of sarcopenia after 16 years [ 24 ]. A longitudinal Finnish study on sarcopenia indices among postmenopausal older women, showed that lower adherence to the Mediterranean (focuses on high consumption of olive oil) or Baltic Sea (focuses on the dietary fat quality and low-fat milk intake) diets resulted in higher loss of lean mass over a 3-year period [ 47 ]. Further, a higher adherence to the Baltic Sea diet was associated with greater lean mass and better physical function, and higher adherence to the Mediterranean diet was associated with greater muscle quality [ 47 ].

In a study of patients with hip fracture age, polypharmacy, and low albumin levels was associated with sarcopenia [ 50 ]. Exocrine pancreatic insufficiency was an independent risk factor for sarcopenia [ 44 ]. This study also revealed that sarcopenia was associated with reduced quality of life, physical function, and increased risk of hospitalization [ 44 ]. In a longitudinal study of community-dwelling adults (+ 75 years) at risk of sarcopenia, high physical function, muscle strength, muscle mass and low BMI predicted better physical function and reduced need for care after four years [ 42 ]. Furthermore, in community-dwelling adults with sarcopenia, muscle mass, muscle strength and physical function are independent predictors of all-cause mortality. As a result, they have been proposed by researchers as targets for the prevention of sarcopenia-related over-mortality [ 43 ]. Lastly, community-dwelling older adults with sarcopenia had lower bone mineral density compared to those without sarcopenia and they were more likely to develop osteoporosis (Osteosarcopenia) [ 40 ].

Regarding SO risk factors, a longitudinal study among community-dwelling older adults in Finland found that SO (operationalized by measures of adiposity) were associated with poorer physical function after ten years [ 48 ].

Our literature search identified three randomized controlled trials investigating the effectiveness of interventions to prevent or counteract sarcopenia in older adults of Norway, Finland, and Sweden, respectively [ 32 , 35 , 46 ]. The Norwegian study [ 32 ] was a double-blinded randomized controlled trial (RCT). The study included those who were at risk of developing sarcopenia, including patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) or individuals who showed diagnostic indications of sarcopenia. Participants received either vitamin D 3 or placebo supplementation for 28 weeks. Additionally, resistance training sessions were provided to all participants from weeks 14 to 27. Vitamin D supplementation did not significantly affect response to resistance training in older adults at risk of sarcopenia with or without COPD [ 32 ].

Furthermore, a RCT among pre-sarcopenic Swedish older adults investigated the effectiveness of three weekly sessions of instructor-led progressive resistance training in combination with a non-mandatory daily nutritional supplement (175 kcal, 19 g protein) compared to control group. The 10 weeks intervention resulted in significant between group improvements of physical function and a significant improvement in body composition in the intervention group [ 46 ].

Another intervention study revealed that a 12-month intervention with two daily nutritional supplements (each containing 20 g whey protein) did not attenuate the deterioration of physical function and muscle mass in sarcopenic older community-dwelling adults compared to isocaloric placebo supplements or no supplementation. All participants were given instructions on home-based exercises, importance of dietary protein and vitamin D supplementation [ 35 ].

Based on our broad literature search 33 studies were identified that concerned sarcopenia and SO and met the inclusion criteria. However, research on SO was very limited with only three studies identified. Narrative synthesis of the included studies revealed that the most reported classification tool for sarcopenia in Nordic countries was the EWGSOP2. Moreover, some studies estimated sarcopenia using EWGSOP. The overall prevalence of sarcopenia in Nordic countries according to EWGSOP2 ranged between 1% and 46% [ 25 , 28 ]. The prevalence of SO, however, was reported only in one study in Sweden (4–11%) [ 39 ]. Even though the previous systematic reviews and meta-analysis have reported the prevalence of sarcopenia and SO in different regions and settings (e.g., community-dwelling, nursing home, etc.) [ 8 , 15 , 55 , 56 ], this current scoping review is to the best of our knowledge the first study that provides an overview of research on sarcopenia and SO in the Nordic countries.

Based on our findings from 24 studies, there were large variability in prevalence of sarcopenia in studies conducted in the Nordic countries. We think that the wide variation in estimated prevalence of sarcopenia in our scoping review might be due to a different definition/diagnostic criterion (e.g., EWGSOP, EWGSOP2, FNIH), methodology to measure muscle mass (DXA, BIA, CT), and heterogeneity in characteristics of the study population (e.g., setting, age, medical conditions, co-occurrence of multiple risk factors). A previous study on prevalence of sarcopenia in Swedish older people showed significant differences between prevalence of sarcopenia based on EWGSOP2 and EWGSOP1 [ 29 ]. Therefore, researchers stressed that prevalence is more dependent on cut-offs than on the operational definition [ 29 , 57 ]. Further, we know that various international sarcopenia working groups have issued expert consensus and such diagnostic criteria are being updated [ 4 , 58 ]. Since the revision of criteria focuses primarily on the adjustment of cut-off values, the main reason for differences in prevalence even when using an updated version of one diagnosis criteria is modification in cut-off values. For instance, if the cut-off value for gait speed was increased by 0.2 m/s, the prevalence of sarcopenia may increase by 8.5% [ 57 ]. Meaning that even a small change in cut-off value can have a big impact on how sarcopenia is diagnosed. Besides when we take definition criteria into account (Table  2 ), the prevalence of sarcopenia is still variable in the population of community-dwelling adults for instance. We believe it is basically because studies have applied different assessment tools and tests to identify older adults with low muscle mass and muscle strength, although using the same definition criteria (Table  1 ). Previous studies have illustrated that choice of methodology to assess muscle strength (e.g., hand grip strength, chair rise) [ 59 ] and muscle mass (e.g., DXA, BIA, anthropometry) [ 60 , 61 , 62 ] in older adults may impact findings and this variability may explain some of the variability in our findings. So, adherence to the latest uniform diagnostic criteria for future studies is recommended to simplify the comparison of findings within the same country, across countries, and regions. Moreover, we suggest that medical community particularly GPs to come to an agreement on assessment methods for muscle mass and muscle strength and the use of one set of definition criteria for sarcopenia.

In previous meta-analyses [ 15 ], sub-group analyses based on region and classification tool, revealed that the prevalence of sarcopenia was higher in European studies using EWGSOP (12%) compared to rest of the studies using Asian Working Group for Sarcopenia (AWGS), FNIH, and EWGSOP (3%) [ 15 ]. In our scoping review, we also found a high prevalence of sarcopenia in Nordic countries. Longevity and life expectancy is higher in the Nordic countries compared to estimates for rest of the world [ 18 ], which means that in this region many people reach old age, and consequently they are more likely to be diagnosed with sarcopenia as an age-related disorder. Therefore, the authors of this current scoping review emphasis the importance of preventive strategies targeted major risk factors and effective interventions to limit the consequences of sarcopenia in the Nordic populations. Besides, we think that the health care system in the Nordic countries should be better equipped with the necessary healthcare resources for both a timely diagnosis and dealing with this major age-related issue in the years to come. However, due to the limitations regarding the timely diagnosis, we highly recommend a comprehensive approach including establishment of support services, implement educational programs, offer training for health care professionals, and engage the community.

Many countries have conducted research on SO [ 7 , 39 , 63 , 64 , 65 ]. Based on our findings, however, among the Nordic countries only Sweden and Finland have investigated the prevalence of probable SO and SO [ 23 , 29 ]. Besides, we only found one study investigating the association between body adiposity and physical function over time [ 54 ]. We did not find any literature on risk factors or interventions among older adults with SO in this region. Therefore, we call on medical and research community in Nordic countries to attach importance to screening of SO in elderly people to capture a full picture of this public health risk to aging society and allocate healthcare resources accordingly.

In terms of risk factors for sarcopenia, our study revealed that malnutrition, low levels of physical activity, specific diseases (e.g., diabetes, osteoporosis), inflammation, polypharmacy (multiple medicines), BMI, and ageing are potential risk factor for sarcopenia in populations of the Nordic region. However, evidence on risk factors derived mainly from cross-sectional associations [ 27 , 28 , 30 , 31 , 34 , 40 , 44 , 49 , 50 , 51 ], and only to a limited extend from longitudinal studies [ 24 , 38 , 43 , 47 ]. Therefore, the associations between risk factors and sarcopenia should be interpreted with caution due to the possibility of reverse causality and confounding affecting the results. Moreover, our findings on risk factors mainly came from community-dwelling older adults, and only to a limited extend hospital and nursing home settings. We think that risk factors may vary depending on population characteristics (e.g., age, sex, health condition) and setting (e.g., hospital, nursing home, community). Therefore, we encourage researchers of the Nordic countries to perform well-designed prospective cohort studies in different settings to enhance the possibility to establish causal inference as well as understanding degree and direction of changes over time.

A recently published meta-analyses revealed a higher risk of having polypharmacy in Europe among individuals with sarcopenia compared to people without this condition [ 66 ]. A nationwide register-based study in Swedish population also showed that the prevalence of polypharmacy has increased in Sweden over the last decade [ 67 ]. Sarcopenia itself is associated with morbidity (identified by specific disease or inflammatory markers) and different health-related outcomes (e.g., disability) [ 7 ]; therefore, future research should investigate whether polypharmacy is a major factor to sarcopenia development [ 66 ]. Although we lack information on polypharmacy in Nordic countries other than Sweden, we encourage researchers in this region to examine the above research gap in their future studies.

According to previous studies physiological changes in ageing include systemic low-grade inflammation which results in insulin resistance, affect protein metabolism and leads to increased muscle wasting [ 68 ]. Acute and chronic disease may increase the inflammatory response and accelerate age-related loss of muscle mass and increase risk of sarcopenia [ 68 , 69 ]. Hence, we think that special attention should be made by health care professionals particularly GPs to older adults with acute or chronic conditions to limit the risk of sarcopenia.

Literature from the Nordic countries also indicated that higher levels of physical activity and different dietary patterns (e.g., higher protein intake, fruit, vegetables, fibers) were associated with reduced risk of sarcopenia or improvement in indicators of sarcopenia. There was a large heterogeneity in the studied aspect which makes direct comparison of studies difficult. Nevertheless, according to findings from a recent systematic review of meta-analyses on sarcopenia the identified risk factors are in alignment with previously identified risk factors globally [ 70 ]. Other potential lifestyle-related risk factors suggested from the above meta-analysis included smoking and extreme sleep duration. However, we did not identify studies investigating these health behaviors in the Nordic populations. Therefore, high-quality cohort studies are needed to deeply understand such associations with the risk of sarcopenia.

In this current review, we only found three intervention studies in Nordic countries. However, two of them were sub-projects of big intervention programs, meaning that such studies were not designed explicitly for the prevention/treatment of sarcopenia. Therefore, explicit intervention studies on sarcopenia in this region is recommended.

We believe that on a global level, research on sarcopenia will carry on with nutrition, exercise, and understanding of molecular mechanisms. Furthermore, examining the link between sarcopenia and other medical conditions/diseases would be the next step [ 6 ]. In the Nordic countries, however, already performed studies have a basic and descriptive design, so that, well-designed research and advanced analyses are lacking. Hence, we recommend conducting large well-designed and adequately powered studies to (a) explore the scale of this age-related health issue on country and regional level, (b) investigate the patterns of physical activity and sedentary behavior to understand if this should be a target in older adults with SO and sarcopenia, (c) determine whether elderly populations are suffering from nutritional deficiency or are at risk of malnutrition. The latest can support further studies to assess the impact of combined physical activity and dietary intake, which are still lacking globally [ 6 ].

A previous systematic review on therapeutic strategies for SO revealed that exercise-based interventions (e.g., resistance training) reduced total adiposity and consequently improved body composition. However, evidence of other therapeutic strategies (e.g., nutritional supplementation) was limited due to scarcity of data and lack of unique definition for SO [ 69 ]. Therefore, authors suggested that more research should be done to clarify optimal treatment options for various age-groups and not only for older adults [ 14 ].

In our scoping review, the included studies, did not provide a status of either SO or the prevention/treatment methods in this region. We believe that SO is practically neglected in clinical practice and research as well, and this is mainly because it is difficult to separate it from general obesity. The consequence of lacking knowledge in this research area is that when older adults with SO are recommended weight loss- a frequently used strategy for management of general obesity- this may accelerate the loss of muscle mass and increase the severity of the sarcopenia [ 3 ]. Consequently, we think that this issue may have adverse effects both on patients (e.g., decreasing quality of their life) and on the health care system (e.g., increasing the health care demands) of this region. Therefore, we encourage researchers to perform cohort studies to understand the epidemiology and etiological basis of SO, which are poorly understood even on a global scale [ 8 ]. We think that the consensus definition on SO from the European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism (ESPEN) and European Association for the Study of Obesity (EASO) which was published in 2022 [ 3 ], can positively affect the ability to define studies on prevalence and prevention of SO. Besides, we recommend conducting further research to find the optimal treatment for SO and reduce its adverse consequences both at individual and society levels. Additionally, we think that the concepts of sarcopenia and SO might be somehow unfamiliar to health care personnel. Therefore, it is highly recommended that more information be provided to bring their attention to the significance of prevention, timely diagnosis, and treatment of these two aging disorders.

Strengths and limitations of the study

This is the first study providing an overview of available evidence on sarcopenia and SO among older adults in the Nordic countries. These countries have important similarities in welfare sectors and on a population level and we believe that our findings will be a significant benefit for researchers and health care providers to understand the knowledge gaps and plan for future studies in this geographical region. However, the current scoping review has limitations. This review was limited to studies among individuals more than 60 years old which may limit the overview of available research in this field, as well as understanding risk factors, confounders for prevention, and the potential for early detection of these two diseases in younger age population. The included cross-sectional studies in our review cannot provide information on causality of the associations.

Sarcopenia and SO are generally prevalent syndromes among older adults in Nordic countries, even though the prevalence of them varies according to the criteria for definition, population, and setting. Research among older adults with SO was very limited in this region. Besides, studies on risk factors were primarily cross-sectional and only few intervention studies were identified. Therefore, we encourage researchers performing well-designed studies (e.g., prospective cohorts) to understand the epidemiology and etiological basis of these two age-related disorders. For the next step, implementation of interventions targeting risk factors (e.g., combined physical activity and dietary intake) and evaluating of their impact on prevention or treatment of sarcopenia and SO is recommended. Furthermore, for the comprehensive advancement of muscle health in older adults, we recommend implementing interventions directed at health care personnel and encouraging more collaboration among clinicians, professional societies, researchers, and policy makers to ensure comprehensive and effective approach to health care initiatives.

Data availability

The datasets used and/or analysed during the current study available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Abbreviations

sarcopenic obesity

Web of science

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses

European Working Group on Sarcopenia in Older People in the updated version from 2019

National Institutes of Health Sarcopenia Project definition

Dual energy X-ray absorptiometry

Bioelectrical Impedance Analysis

Bioimpedance Spectroscopy

Computed Tomography

Computed Tomography Angiogram

World Health Organization

General Practitioner

Randomized Controlled Trial

Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease

European Association for the Study of Obesity

United, Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs., Population Division (2019). World Population Prospects 2019: Highlights (ST/ESA/SER.A/423).

United, Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs., Population Division (2019). World Population Ageing 2019: Highlights (ST/ESA/SER.A/430).

Donini LM, Busetto L, Bischoff SC, Cederholm T, Ballesteros-Pomar MD, Batsis JA, Bauer JM, Boirie Y, Cruz-Jentoft AJ, Dicker D, Frara S, Frühbeck G, Genton L, Gepner Y, Giustina A, Gonzalez MC, Han HS, Heymsfield SB, Higashiguchi T, Laviano A, Lenzi A, Nyulasi I, Parrinello E, Poggiogalle E, Prado CM, Salvador J, Rolland Y, Santini F, Serlie MJ, Shi H, Sieber CC, Siervo M, Vettor R, Villareal DT, Volkert D, Yu J, Zamboni M, Barazzoni R. Definition and diagnostic criteria for sarcopenic obesity: ESPEN and EASO Consensus Statement. Obes Facts. 2022;15(3):321–35. doi: 10.1159/000521241. Epub 2022 Feb 23. PMID: 35196654; PMCID: PMC9210010.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Cruz-Jentoft AJ, Bahat G, Bauer J, Boirie Y, Bruyère O, Cederholm T, Cooper C, Landi F, Rolland Y, Sayer AA, Schneider SM, Sieber CC, Topinkova E, Vandewoude M, Visser M, Zamboni M, Writing Group for the European Working Group on Sarcopenia in Older People 2 (EWGSOP2), and the Extended Group for EWGSOP2. Sarcopenia: revised European consensus on definition and diagnosis. Age Ageing. 2019;48(1):16–31. https://doi.org/10.1093/ageing/afy169 . Erratum in: Age Ageing. 2019;48(4):601. PMID: 30312372; PMCID: PMC6322506.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Cylus J, Figueras J, Normand C. Will population ageing spell the end of the welfare state? A review of evidence and policy options [Internet]. Sagan A, Richardson E, North J, White C, editors. Copenhagen (Denmark): European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies; 2019. PMID: 31820887.

Yuan D, Jin H, Liu Q, Zhang J, Ma B, Xiao W, Li Y. Publication trends for Sarcopenia in the World: a 20-Year bibliometric analysis. Front Med (Lausanne). 2022;9:802651. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2022.802651 . PMID: 35223902; PMCID: PMC8873525.

Marengoni A, Angleman S, Melis R, Mangialasche F, Karp A, Garmen A, Meinow B, Fratiglioni L. Aging with multimorbidity: a systematic review of the literature. Ageing Res Rev. 2011;10(4):430–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arr.2011.03.003 . Epub 2011 Mar 23. PMID: 21402176.

Gao Q, Mei F, Shang Y, Hu K, Chen F, Zhao L, Ma B. Global prevalence of sarcopenic obesity in older adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Nutr. 2021;40(7):4633–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clnu.2021.06.009 . Epub 2021 Jun 21. PMID: 34229269.

Molino S, Dossena M, Buonocore D, Verri M. Sarcopenic obesity: an appraisal of the current status of knowledge and management in elderly people. J Nutr Health Aging. 2016;20(7):780-8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12603-015-0631-8 . PMID: 27499312.

Khadra D, Itani L, Tannir H, Kreidieh D, El Masri D, El Ghoch M. Association between sarcopenic obesity and higher risk of type 2 diabetes in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis. World J Diabetes. 2019;10(5):311–23. https://doi.org/10.4239/wjd.v10.i5.311 . PMID: 31139318; PMCID: PMC6522758.

Aggio DA, Sartini C, Papacosta O, Lennon LT, Ash S, Whincup PH, Wannamethee SG, Jefferis BJ. Cross-sectional associations of objectively measured physical activity and sedentary time with Sarcopenia and sarcopenic obesity in older men. Prev Med. 2016;91:264–72. Epub 2016 Aug 26. PMID: 27575317; PMCID: PMC5061552.

Rossi AP, Rubele S, Calugi S, Caliari C, Pedelini F, Soave F, Chignola E, Vittoria Bazzani P, Mazzali G, Dalle Grave R, Zamboni M. Weight cycling as a risk factor for low muscle mass and strength in a population of males and females with obesity. Obesity (Silver Spring). 2019;27(7):1068–1075. https://doi.org/10.1002/oby.22493 . PMID: 31231958.

Dent E, Morley JE, Cruz-Jentoft AJ, Arai H, Kritchevsky SB, Guralnik J, Bauer JM, Pahor M, Clark BC, Cesari M, Ruiz J, Sieber CC, Aubertin-Leheudre M, Waters DL, Visvanathan R, Landi F, Villareal DT, Fielding R, Won CW, Theou O, Martin FC, Dong B, Woo J, Flicker L, Ferrucci L, Merchant RA, Cao L, Cederholm T, Ribeiro SML, Rodríguez-Mañas L, Anker SD, Lundy J, Gutiérrez Robledo LM, Bautmans I, Aprahamian I, Schols JMGA, Izquierdo M, Vellas B. International clinical practice guidelines for sarcopenia (ICFSR): screening, diagnosis and management. J Nutr Health Aging. 2018;22(10):1148–1161. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12603-018-1139-9 . PMID: 30498820.

Poggiogalle E, Parrinello E, Barazzoni R, Busetto L, Donini LM. Therapeutic strategies for sarcopenic obesity: a systematic review. Curr Opin Clin Nutr Metab Care. 2021;24(1):33–41. https://doi.org/10.1097/MCO.0000000000000714 . PMID: 33323715.

Petermann-Rocha F, Balntzi V, Gray SR, Lara J, Ho FK, Pell JP, Celis-Morales C. Global prevalence of Sarcopenia and severe Sarcopenia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle. 2022;13(1):86–99. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcsm.12783 . Epub 2021 Nov 23. PMID: 34816624; PMCID: PMC8818604.

Prado CM, Wells JC, Smith SR, Stephan BC, Siervo M. Sarcopenic obesity: a critical appraisal of the current evidence. Clin Nutr. 2012;31(5):583–601. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clnu.2012.06.010 . Epub 2012 Jul 17. PMID: 22809635.

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Balaj M, Huijts T, McNamara CL, Stornes P, Bambra C, Eikemo TA. Non-communicable diseases and the social determinants of health in the nordic countries: findings from the European Social Survey (2014) special module on the social determinants of health. Scand J Public Health. 2017;45(2):90–102. Epub 2017 Jan 27. PMID: 28128015.

Nordic Burden of Disease Collaborators. Life expectancy and disease burden in the Nordic countries: results from the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study 2017. Lancet Public Health. 2019;4(12): e658-e669. doi: 10.1016/S2468-2667(19)30224-5. Epub 2019 Nov 20. PMID: 31759894; PMCID: PMC7098475.

Stockmarr A, Hejgaard T, Matthiessen J. Obesity prevention in the Nordic Countries. Curr Obes Rep. 2016;5(2):156 – 65. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13679-016-0206-y . PMID: 27033877.

Cuadrado A, Stjernberg M, Huynh D. Active and healthy ageing: heterogenous perspectives and nordic indicators. Nordens välfärdscenter/Nordic Welfare Centre; 2022.

Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Int J Surg. 2010;8(5):336 – 41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsu.2010.02.007 . Epub 2010 Feb 18. Erratum in: Int J Surg. 2010;8(8):658. PMID: 20171303.

Sallfeldt ES, Mallmin H, Karlsson MK, Mellström D, Hailer NP, Ribom EL. Sarcopenia prevalence and incidence in older men - a MrOs Sweden study. Geriatr Nurs. 2023 Mar-Apr;50:102–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gerinurse.2023.01.003 . Epub 2023 Feb 10. PMID: 36774676.

Sääksjärvi K, Härkänen T, Stenholm S, Schaap L, Lundqvist A, Koskinen S, Borodulin K, Visser M. Probable Sarcopenia, obesity, and risk of all-cause mortality: a pooled analysis of 4,612 participants. Gerontology. 2023;69(6):706–15. Epub 2023 Jan 30. PMID: 36716714.

Karlsson M, Becker W, Cederholm TE, Byberg L. A posteriori dietary patterns in 71-year-old Swedish men and the prevalence of Sarcopenia 16 years later. Br J Nutr Camb Univ Press. 2022;128(5):909–20. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007114521003901 .

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Dolin TG, Mikkelsen MK, Jakobsen HL, Vinther A, Zerahn B, Nielsen DL, Johansen JS, Lund CM, Suetta C. The prevalence of Sarcopenia and cachexia in older patients with localized colorectal cancer. J Geriatr Oncol. 2023;14(1):101402. Epub 2022 Nov 21. PMID: 36424269.

Paajanen P, Lindström I, Oksala N, Väärämäki S, Saari P, Mäkinen K, Kärkkäinen JM. Radiographically quantified Sarcopenia and traditional cardiovascular risk assessment in predicting long-term mortality after endovascular aortic repair. J Vasc Surg. 2022;76(4):908–e9152. Epub 2022 Mar 31. PMID: 35367563.

Sobestiansky S, Åberg AC, Cederholm T. Sarcopenia and malnutrition in relation to mortality in hospitalised patients in geriatric care - predictive validity of updated diagnoses. Clin Nutr ESPEN. 2021;45:442–8. Epub 2021 Jul 16. PMID: 34620352.

Papaioannou KG, Nilsson A, Nilsson LM, Kadi F. Healthy eating is Associated with Sarcopenia Risk in physically active older adults. Nutrients. 2021;13(8):2813. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu13082813 . PMID: 34444973; PMCID: PMC8401667.

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Wallengren O, Bosaeus I, Frändin K, Lissner L, Falk Erhag H, Wetterberg H, Rydberg Sterner T, Rydén L, Rothenberg E, Skoog I. Comparison of the 2010 and 2019 diagnostic criteria for Sarcopenia by the European Working Group on Sarcopenia in Older people (EWGSOP) in two cohorts of Swedish older adults. BMC Geriatr. 2021;21(1):600. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12877-021-02533-y . PMID: 34702174; PMCID: PMC8547086.

Scott D, Johansson J, Gandham A, Ebeling PR, Nordstrom P, Nordstrom A. Associations of accelerometer-determined physical activity and sedentary behavior with Sarcopenia and incident falls over 12 months in community-dwelling Swedish older adults. J Sport Health Sci. 2021;10(5):577–84. Epub 2020 Feb 5. PMID: 34088651; PMCID: PMC8500807.

Veen J, Montiel-Rojas D, Nilsson A, Kadi F. Engagement in muscle-strengthening activities lowers Sarcopenia Risk in older adults already adhering to the Aerobic Physical Activity guidelines. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18(3):989. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18030989 . PMID: 33499423; PMCID: PMC7908493.

Mølmen KS, Hammarström D, Pedersen K, Lian Lie AC, Steile RB, Nygaard H, Khan Y, Hamarsland H, Koll L, Hanestadhaugen M, Eriksen AL, Grindaker E, Whist JE, Buck D, Ahmad R, Strand TA, Rønnestad BR, Ellefsen S. Vitamin D3 supplementation does not enhance the effects of resistance training in older adults. J Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle. 2021;12(3):599–628. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcsm.12688 . Epub 2021 Mar 31. PMID: 33788419; PMCID: PMC8200443.

Simonsen C, Kristensen TS, Sundberg A, Wielsøe S, Christensen J, Hansen CP, Burgdorf SK, Suetta C, de Heer P, Svendsen LB, Achiam MP, Christensen JF. Assessment of Sarcopenia in patients with upper gastrointestinal tumors: prevalence and agreement between computed tomography and dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry. Clin Nutr. 2021;40(5):2809–16. Epub 2021 Mar 26. PMID: 33933747.

Faxén-Irving G, Luiking Y, Grönstedt H, Franzén E, Seiger Å, Vikström S, Wimo A, Boström AM, Cederholm T. Do malnutrition, sarcopenia and frailty overlap in nursing-home residents? J Frailty Aging. 2021;10(1):17–21. https://doi.org/10.14283/jfa.2020.45 . PMID: 33331617.

Björkman MP, Suominen MH, Kautiainen H, Jyväkorpi SK, Finne-Soveri HU, Strandberg TE, Pitkälä KH, Tilvis RS. Effect of protein supplementation on physical performance in older people with sarcopenia-a randomized controlled trial. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2020;21(2):226–e2321. Epub 2019 Nov 14. PMID: 31734121.

Jyväkorpi SK, Urtamo A, Kivimäki M, Strandberg TE. Macronutrient composition and sarcopenia in the oldest-old men: the Helsinki businessmen study (HBS). Clin Nutr. 2020;39(12):3839–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clnu.2020.04.024 . Epub 2020 Apr 24. PMID: 32376097.

Probert N, Lööw A, Akner G, Wretenberg P, Andersson ÅG. A comparison of patients with hip fracture, ten years apart: morbidity, malnutrition and sarcopenia. J Nutr Health Aging. 2020;24(8):870–877. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12603-020-1408-2 . PMID: 33009538.

Sjöblom S, Sirola J, Rikkonen T, Erkkilä AT, Kröger H, Qazi SL, Isanejad M. Interaction of recommended levels of physical activity and protein intake is associated with greater physical function and lower fat mass in older women: Kuopio osteoporosis risk Factor- (OSTPRE) and fracture-Prevention Study. Br J Nutr. 2020;123(7):826–39. Epub 2020 Jan 8. PMID: 31910914; PMCID: PMC7054249.

von Berens Å, Obling SR, Nydahl M, Koochek A, Lissner L, Skoog I, Frändin K, Skoglund E, Rothenberg E, Cederholm T. Sarcopenic obesity and associations with mortality in older women and men - a prospective observational study. BMC Geriatr. 2020;20(1):199. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12877-020-01578-9 . PMID: 32517653; PMCID: PMC7285448.

Nielsen BR, Andersen HE, Haddock B, Hovind P, Schwarz P, Suetta C. Prevalence of muscle dysfunction concomitant with osteoporosis in a home-dwelling Danish population aged 65–93 years -the Copenhagen Sarcopenia Study. Exp Gerontol. 2020;138:110974. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.exger.2020.110974 . Epub 2020 May 25. PMID: 32464171.

Van Ancum JM, Alcazar J, Meskers CGM, Nielsen BR, Suetta C, Maier AB. Impact of using the updated EWGSOP2 definition in diagnosing Sarcopenia: a clinical perspective. Arch Gerontol Geriatr 2020 Sep-Oct;90:104125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.archger.2020.104125 . Epub 2020 May 23. PMID: 32534364.

Björkman M, Jyväkorpi SK, Strandberg TE, Pitkälä KH, Tilvis RS. Sarcopenia indicators as predictors of functional decline and need for care among older people. J Nutr Health Aging. 2019;23(10):916–922. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12603-019-1280-0 . PMID: 31781719.

Björkman MP, Pitkala KH, Jyväkorpi S, Strandberg TE, Tilvis RS. Bioimpedance analysis and physical functioning as mortality indicators among older sarcopenic people. Exp Gerontol. 2019;122:42–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.exger.2019.04.012 . Epub 2019 Apr 24. PMID: 31026498.

Olesen SS, Büyükuslu A, Køhler M, Rasmussen HH, Drewes AM. Sarcopenia associates with increased hospitalization rates and reduced survival in patients with chronic pancreatitis. Pancreatology. 2019;19(2):245–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pan.2019.01.006 . Epub 2019 Jan 14. PMID: 30665702.

Sobestiansky S, Michaelsson K, Cederholm T. Sarcopenia prevalence and associations with mortality and hospitalisation by various sarcopenia definitions in 85–89 year old community-dwelling men: a report from the ULSAM study. BMC Geriatr. 2019;19(1):318. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12877-019-1338-1 . PMID: 31747923; PMCID: PMC6864927.

Vikberg S, Sörlén N, Brandén L, Johansson J, Nordström A, Hult A, Nordström P. Effects of resistance training on functional strength and muscle mass in 70-Year-old individuals with pre-sarcopenia: a randomized controlled trial. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2019;20(1):28–34. Epub 2018 Nov 7. PMID: 30414822.

Isanejad M, Sirola J, Mursu J, Rikkonen T, Kröger H, Tuppurainen M, Erkkilä AT. Association of the baltic sea and mediterranean diets with indices of sarcopenia in elderly women, OSPTRE-FPS study. Eur J Nutr. 2018;57(4):1435–48. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00394-017-1422-2 . Epub 2017 Mar 16. PMID: 28303397.

Mikkola TM, von Bonsdorff MB, Salonen MK, Simonen M, Pohjolainen P, Osmond C, Perälä MM, Rantanen T, Kajantie E, Eriksson JG. Body composition as a predictor of physical performance in older age: a ten-year follow-up of the Helsinki Birth Cohort Study. Arch Gerontol Geriatr. 2018 Jul-Aug;77:163–8. doi: 10.1016/j.archger.2018.05.009. Epub 2018 May 14. PMID: 29783137; PMCID: PMC5994345.

Ottestad I, Ulven SM, Øyri LKL, Sandvei KS, Gjevestad GO, Bye A, Sheikh NA, Biong AS, Andersen LF, Holven KB. Reduced plasma concentration of branched-chain amino acids in sarcopenic older subjects: a cross-sectional study. Br J Nutr. 2018;120(4):445–53. Epub 2018 Jun 18. PMID: 29909813.

Steihaug OM, Gjesdal CG, Bogen B, Kristoffersen MH, Lien G, Ranhoff AH. Sarcopenia in patients with hip fracture: a multicenter cross-sectional study. PLoS ONE. 2017;12(9):e0184780. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0184780 . PMID: 28902873; PMCID: PMC5597226.

Jacobsen EL, Brovold T, Bergland A, Bye A. Prevalence of factors associated with malnutrition among acute geriatric patients in Norway: a cross-sectional study. BMJ Open. 2016;6(9):e011512. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-011512 . PMID: 27601491; PMCID: PMC5020767.

Jansen RB, Christensen TM, Bülow J, Rørdam L, Holstein PE, Svendsen OL. Sarcopenia and body composition in diabetic Charcot osteoarthropathy. J Diabetes Complications. 2015 Sep-Oct;29(7):937–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdiacomp.2015.05.020 . Epub 2015 Jun 5. PMID: 26139557.

Frost M, Nielsen TL, Brixen K, Andersen M. Peak muscle mass in young men and Sarcopenia in the ageing male. Osteoporos Int. 2015;26(2):749–56. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-014-2960-6 . Epub 2014 Nov 22. PMID: 25416073.

Patil R, Uusi-Rasi K, Pasanen M, Kannus P, Karinkanta S, Sievänen H. Sarcopenia and osteopenia among 70-80-year-old home-dwelling finnish women: prevalence and association with functional performance. Osteoporos Int. 2013;24(3):787–96. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-012-2046-2 . Epub 2012 Jun 12. PMID: 22688541.

Papadopoulou SK, Tsintavis P, Potsaki P, Papandreou D. Differences in the prevalence of sarcopenia in community-dwelling, nursing home and hospitalized individuals. a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Nutr Health Aging. 2020;24(1):83–90. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12603-019-1267-x . PMID: 31886813.

Mayhew AJ, Amog K, Phillips S, Parise G, McNicholas PD, de Souza RJ, Thabane L, Raina P. The prevalence of sarcopenia in community-dwelling older adults, an exploration of differences between studies and within definitions: a systematic review and meta-analyses. Age Ageing. 2019;48(1):48–56. https://doi.org/10.1093/ageing/afy106 . PMID: 30052707.

Cao M, Lian J, Lin X, Liu J, Chen C, Xu S, Ma S, Wang F, Zhang N, Qi X, Xu G, Peng N. Prevalence of Sarcopenia under different diagnostic criteria and the changes in muscle mass, muscle strength, and physical function with age in Chinese old adults. BMC Geriatr. 2022;22(1):889. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12877-022-03601-7 . PMID: 36418979; PMCID: PMC9682713.

Cruz-Jentoft AJ, Baeyens JP, Bauer JM, Boirie Y, Cederholm T, Landi F, Martin FC, Michel JP, Rolland Y, Schneider SM, Topinková E, Vandewoude M, Zamboni M, European working group on sarcopenia in older people. sarcopenia: European consensus on definition and diagnosis: report of the European working group on sarcopenia in older people. Age Ageing. 2010;39(4):412–23. https://doi.org/10.1093/ageing/afq034 . Epub 2010 Apr 13. PMID: 20392703; PMCID: PMC2886201.

Verstraeten LMG, de Haan NJ, Verbeet E, van Wijngaarden JP, Meskers CGM, Maier AB. Handgrip strength rather than chair stand test should be used to diagnose s in geriatric rehabilitation inpatients: restoring health of acutely unwell adulTs (RESORT). Age Ageing. 2022;51(11):afac242. https://doi.org/10.1093/ageing/afac242 . PMID: 36413590; PMCID: PMC9681126.

Cheng KY, Chow SK, Hung VW, Wong CH, Wong RM, Tsang CS, Kwok T, Cheung WH. Diagnosis of sarcopenia by evaluating skeletal muscle mass by adjusted bioimpedance analysis validated with dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry. J Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle. 2021;12(6):2163–73. Epub 2021 Oct 4. PMID: 34609065; PMCID: PMC8718029.

Sousa-Santos AR, Barros D, Montanha TL, Carvalho J, Amaral TF. Which is the best alternative to estimate muscle mass for sarcopenia diagnosis when DXA is unavailable? Arch Gerontol Geriatr. 2021 Nov-Dec;97:104517. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.archger.2021.104517 . Epub 2021 Sep 3. PMID: 34547538.

González Correa CH, Marulanda Mejía F, Castaño González PA, Vidarte Claros JA, Castiblanco Arroyabe HD. Bioelectrical impedance analysis and dual x-ray absorptiometry agreement for skeletal muscle mass index evaluation in sarcopenia diagnosis. Physiol Meas. 2020;41(6):064005. https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6579/ab8e5f . PMID: 32348971.

Hwang B, Lim JY, Lee J, Choi NK, Ahn YO, Park BJ. Prevalence rate and associated factors of sarcopenic obesity in Korean elderly population. J Korean Med Sci. 2012;27(7):748–55. https://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2012.27.7.748 . Epub 2012 Jun 29. PMID: 22787369; PMCID: PMC3390722.

Kera T, Kawai H, Hirano H, Kojima M, Fujiwara Y, Ihara K, Obuchi S. Differences in body composition and physical function related to pure Sarcopenia and sarcopenic obesity: a study of community-dwelling older adults in Japan. Geriatr Gerontol Int. 2017;17(12):2602–9. https://doi.org/10.1111/ggi.13119 . Epub 2017 Jun 28. PMID: 28657168.

Aibar-Almazán A, Martínez-Amat A, Cruz-Díaz D, Jiménez-García JD, Achalandabaso A, Sánchez-Montesinos I, de la Torre-Cruz M, Hita-Contreras F. Sarcopenia and sarcopenic obesity in Spanish community-dwelling middle-aged and older women: Association with balance confidence, fear of falling and fall risk. Maturitas. 2018;107:26–32. Epub 2017 Oct 7. PMID: 29169576.

Prokopidis K, Giannos P, Reginster JY, Bruyere O, Petrovic M, Cherubini A, Triantafyllidis KK, Kechagias KS, Dionyssiotis Y, Cesari M, Ibrahim K, Scott D, Barbagallo M, Veronese N, the Task Force on Pharmaceutical Strategy of the European Geriatric Medicine Society (EuGMS). Special interest group in Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses and sarcopenia is associated with a greater risk of polypharmacy and number of medications: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle. 2023;14(2):671–683. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcsm.13190 . Epub 2023 Feb 13. PMID: 36781175; PMCID: PMC10067503.

Zhang N, Sundquist J, Sundquist K, Ji J. An increasing Trend in the prevalence of polypharmacy in Sweden: a nationwide register-based study. Front Pharmacol. 2020;11:326. https://doi.org/10.3389/fphar.2020.00326 . PMID: 32265705; PMCID: PMC7103636.

Dalle S, Rossmeislova L, Koppo K. The role of inflammation in age-related sarcopenia. Front Physiol. 2017;8:1045. https://doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2017.01045 . PMID: 29311975; PMCID: PMC5733049.

Riuzzi F, Sorci G, Arcuri C, Giambanco I, Bellezza I, Minelli A, Donato R. Cellular and molecular mechanisms of sarcopenia: the S100B perspective. J Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle. 2018;9(7):1255–68. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcsm.12363 . Epub 2018 Nov 30. PMID: 30499235; PMCID: PMC6351675.

Yuan S, Larsson SC. Epidemiology of sarcopenia: prevalence, risk factors, and consequences. Metabolism. 2023;144:155533. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.metabol.2023.155533 . Epub 2023 Mar 11. PMID: 36907247.

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Open access funding provided by University of Southern Denmark

This work was done without any fund.

Author information

Fereshteh Baygi, Sussi Friis Buhl contributed equally to this work.

Authors and Affiliations

Research Unit of General Practice, Department of Public Health, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark

Fereshteh Baygi, Sussi Friis Buhl, Trine Thilsing, Jens Søndergaard & Jesper Bo Nielsen

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

FB conceived and designed the review, participated in literature review, data extraction, interpretation of the results and wrote the manuscript. SFB designed the review, participated in literature review, data extraction, and revised the manuscript. TT, JBN and JS contributed to the conception of the study and revised the manuscript critically. All the authors approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Fereshteh Baygi or Sussi Friis Buhl .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate, consent for publication, competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

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

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary Material 1

Rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, 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 changes were made. 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/4.0/ . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Baygi, F., Buhl, S.F., Thilsing, T. et al. Sarcopenia and sarcopenic obesity among older adults in the nordic countries: a scoping review. BMC Geriatr 24 , 421 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12877-024-04970-x

Download citation

Received : 12 November 2023

Accepted : 12 April 2024

Published : 13 May 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12877-024-04970-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

• Sarcopenic obesity
• Nordic countries

BMC Geriatrics

ISSN: 1471-2318

• Submission enquiries: [email protected]
• General enquiries: [email protected]