Skip to Main Content

Literature reviews

Whether you're writing your dissertation, an annotated bibliography or a research proposal, this guide covers everything you need to know in order to structure and write an expert literature review.

Critical writing

Paragraph structure

Each paragraph of your literature review should bring together or synthesise two or more pieces of reading (these could be articles, book chapters, reports, videos, policy documents etc.) 

Synthesis is the term we use in academic writing to describe the process of creating an opinion or argument based on a trend you find in the literature. If you are able to synthesis evidence, you are not only creating a robust argument (by avoiding relying too heavily on just one piece of writing) but you are also showing that you are a critical writer that can make conclusions based on a diverse range of evidence. Bingo!

As in other forms of academic writing, the paragraphs in your literature review should have four key sections:

Topic sentence: The key theme or trend that you have identified in the literature.
Introduce the evidence: Give more information on the specific way in which the studies in this paragraph link together. This provides extra context for the reader and allows you to give more descriptive informationif needed.
Evidence: Show the evidence for the link or trend you are proposing. Think of this as creating a body of evidence at the centre of your paragraph, and link sources together using signposting words.
Discussion: Your critical voice, offering one interpretation of the evidence. You could discuss the strengths or weaknesses of the studies, highlight their significance for your study, or think about a possible consequence of their agreement. Try to answer the question 'so what?

 

Compare the following paragraphs against this four-part structure - which version is more critical?
 

Paragraph A:

Paragraph B:

Researchers have studied dog communication at length. Some studies have focused on rapid eye movement in dogs, where researchers conducted observations of different groups of dogs some with a single person present, others in groups or with children in the room. Basset Griffon (2018) found that dogs communicated more through blinks and winks when they were alone than when humans were present, and this has been explored in another study by Markiesje (2016). Other studies have looked at dogs who are related but there was no real difference between dogs from the same family and others with no connection (Sennenhunde, 2015; Sealeyham 2011). Overall, communication in pets is a wide research topic and the literature is very diverse.

There is a developing body of evidence to suggest that dogs may be capable of advanced communication when their owners are not present. A recent study of rapid eye movement in unsupervised dogs (Basset Griffon, 2018) identified at least six repeated patterns of blinks and winks in 82% of the observed canine-to-canine interactions. Similarly, in a longitudinal study conducted in a rescue centre in the Netherlands (Markiesje, 2016), researchers indicated that the number of non-verbal communication cues between kennel mates increased in direct proportion to the amount of time they spent together. Studies into interactions between dog siblings have confirmed this correlation, although there was no significant difference between direct siblings and those dogs adopted into the same family, suggesting that an aptitude for communication may not be inherited (Sennenhunde, 2015; Sealeyham 2011). Future research might therefore develop this line of enquiry, and consider whether humans might mimic these same non-verbal cues to conduct rudimentary conversations with their pets.

Although both paragraphs use the TIED structure, we can see that the discussion in paragraph B is much more developed, and gives a specific suggestion about how future research could be conducted. We can also see that the evidence in paragraph B is clearly linked together, and that the conclusions or critical features of the papers are explained to the reader. Although drawing on the same evidence, paragraph A summarises and describes the research papers, rather than giving an evaluation or clear comparison of the different sources.

 

Focusing on the discussion sections (in bold), we can see that paragraph B is more critical, as it answers a key questions to keep in mind when writing critically: 'so what?' What conclusion or take home message do you want the reader to get from the evidence you have presented? ‘Therefore’, ‘Consequently’ and ‘As a result’ are all good terms to use here, as they prompt you to be clear and explicitly explain on interpretation of the source you have included.

 


Adsetts Library
Collegiate Library


Sheffield Hallam University
City Campus, Howard Street
Sheffield S1 1WB