Writing a strong literature review — practical steps

Sep 2025 • 8–9 min read

A strong literature review does more than summarise research — it identifies patterns, contradictions, gaps, and methodological issues that justify your thesis. This expanded guide provides a structured workflow, templates, examples, and quality checks tailored for PhD students in India.

What a literature review should achieve

A high-quality literature review must:

  • Map existing knowledge — what is known, what is debated, and what is missing.
  • Situate your study — place your topic inside a broader theoretical or methodological space.
  • Identify a justified gap — population, variable, method, theory, or dataset gap.
  • Build a logical argument for why your research must exist.
  • Set the foundation for your conceptual framework and hypotheses.

Step 1: Define keywords, scope & search strategy

Start with broad ideas and refine. Use 3 layers of keywords:

  1. Core variables — “work engagement”, “machine learning adoption”, “groundwater modelling”.
  2. Contextual factors — “India”, “public sector”, “women entrepreneurs”, “manufacturing units”.
  3. Methodological terms — “SEM”, “panel data”, “qualitative thematic analysis”.

Recommended databases:

  • Scopus, Web of Science — best for systematic searching
  • Google Scholar — broad coverage but noisy
  • PubMed — life sciences
  • IEEE Xplore — engineering & computer science
  • Shodhganga — Indian PhD theses
  • ResearchGate (for working papers)

Tip: Maintain a “Search Log Table” documenting: database, keywords, filters, date, and number of results retrieved — useful for appendices and thesis reviewers.

Step 2: Screen efficiently with 3 filters

Do not read 500 papers. Use three quick screening layers:

1. Title screening

  • Remove irrelevant domains early.

2. Abstract screening

  • Check scope, method, population, and relevance to your research question.

3. Full-text screening

  • Read only papers that are clearly connected to your variables or theoretical model.

Keep notes on each exclusion — small lists help justify your review process.

Step 3: Build a comprehensive literature matrix

Use Excel/Google Sheets with these columns:

  1. Author, Year
  2. Country/Context
  3. Research Problem
  4. Variables & Definitions
  5. Theoretical Framework Used
  6. Methods & Sample Size
  7. Key Findings
  8. Limitations Authors Mention
  9. Type of Gap Suggested

This table becomes your backbone for:

  • identifying gaps,
  • theoretical synthesis,
  • drafting hypotheses,
  • writing chapter 2 efficiently.

Tip: Use color coding: Green = strong evidence, Yellow = moderate, Red = conflicting or inconsistent findings.

Step 4: Organise by meaningful themes — not by year

Examiners dislike chronological reviews. Instead, use themes such as:

  • Theoretical models (e.g., TPB vs. TAM vs. UTAUT)
  • Methods used (experimental, survey, simulation, mixed methods)
  • Population or context (corporate employees, farmers, MSMEs, students)
  • Outcome variables (performance, satisfaction, resilience, growth)

Within each theme, compare studies directly:

  • Which studies support each other?
  • Which contradict?
  • What are the methodological weaknesses?

This builds a logical, critical narrative instead of a list.

Step 5: Critique — go beyond summary

Use the “SEMI” critique model:

  • S — Scope (Is the study too narrow or broad?)
  • E — Evidence strength (Sample size, method, robustness)
  • M — Methodological appropriateness (Did the method match the RQ?)
  • I — Implications (Does the study explain why results matter?)

Use contrast language:

  • “Consistent across…”
  • “Limited evidence for…”
  • “Methodological weaknesses include…”
  • “Results diverge due to…”

Step 6: Identify your research gap using 5 gap types

Most strong PhD gaps fall into one of these categories:

  • Population Gap: Prior studies used Western or urban samples; Indian rural or sector-specific contexts missing.
  • Variable Gap: A new mediator/moderator not explored before (e.g., “digital fatigue”, “psychological safety”).
  • Method Gap: Earlier studies used cross-sectional surveys; yours uses longitudinal, SEM, or experiments.
  • Theory Gap: Integrating two theories (e.g., RBV + dynamic capabilities).
  • Data Gap: Prior data outdated; you use post-COVID, recent, or unreleased organisational data.

Good gap statement example:

“Although several studies examine work engagement drivers in Western contexts, limited research has investigated engagement among public-sector employees in India using multi-level modelling. Further, the moderating role of digital fatigue remains unexplored.”

Step 7: Link the gap to your research questions & framework

Your literature review should smoothly lead to:

  • your conceptual model,
  • your constructs,
  • your hypotheses.

Template sentence:

“Based on gaps identified — especially the limited use of longitudinal designs and the absence of studies including variable X — the present research proposes the following conceptual framework…”

Step 8: Writing the literature review — paragraph structure

Use the **PEEL** or **CER** model:

PEEL Structure

  1. Point: State the theme.
  2. Evidence: Cite a group of studies.
  3. Explanation: Compare their methods, strengths, contradictions.
  4. Link: Connect back to your RQ or gap.

CER (Claim–Evidence–Reasoning)

Useful for quantitative reviews.

Step 9: Tools to simplify your process

  • Zotero — citation manager
  • Connected Papers — visual citation mapping
  • ResearchRabbit — topic expansion tool
  • Publish or Perish — detailed citation extraction
  • Excel/Notion — literature matrix management

Common pitfalls to avoid

  • Summarising one paper per paragraph (no synthesis)
  • Relying only on Google Scholar
  • Using outdated sources (>10 years old) without justification
  • No critical evaluation — only listing findings
  • Missing Indian or region-specific studies
  • No clear link between review → gap → RQs → framework

Mini templates

Template for discussing limitations of past studies:

“Most prior research uses self-reported, cross-sectional surveys, limiting causal interpretation. Few studies triangulate data sources or apply longitudinal/experimental designs.”

Template for linking to your study:

“Owing to these limitations, the present study applies a mixed-methods approach and includes both qualitative insights and structural modelling.”

Checklist before submitting your literature review

  • Have you covered all key theories logically?
  • Is every paragraph synthesised (not a list)?
  • Have you identified at least one strong, justified gap?
  • Do sections flow smoothly into hypotheses?
  • Is your review balanced — acknowledging contradictions?
  • Are all references properly cited and updated?
Chat