literature review in research project

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, generate accurate citations for free.

• Knowledge Base

Methodology

• How to Write a Literature Review | Guide, Examples, & Templates

How to Write a Literature Review | Guide, Examples, & Templates

Published on January 2, 2023 by Shona McCombes . Revised on September 11, 2023.

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 that you can later apply to your paper, thesis, or dissertation topic .

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 summarize sources—it analyzes, synthesizes , and critically evaluates to give a clear picture of the state of knowledge on the subject.

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

Upload your document to correct all your mistakes in minutes

Table of contents

What is the purpose of 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, free lecture slides, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions, introduction.

• Quick Run-through
• Step 1 & 2

When you write a thesis , dissertation , or research paper , you will likely 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 its scholarly context
• Develop a theoretical framework and methodology for your research
• Position your work in relation to other researchers and theorists
• Show how your research addresses a gap or contributes to a debate
• Evaluate the current state of research and demonstrate your knowledge of the scholarly debates around your topic.

Writing literature reviews is a particularly important skill if you want to apply for graduate school or pursue a career in research. We’ve written a step-by-step guide that you can follow below.

Here's why students love Scribbr's proofreading services

Discover proofreading & editing

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 problem and questions .

Make a list of keywords

Start by creating a list of keywords related to your research question. 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 as 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 useful 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 also use boolean operators to help narrow down your search.

Make sure to 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.

You likely won’t be able to read absolutely everything that has been written on your topic, so it will be necessary to evaluate which sources are most relevant to your research question.

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?
• 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 use our template to summarize and evaluate sources you’re thinking about using. Click on either button below to download.

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 is important to keep track of your sources with citations to avoid plagiarism . It can be helpful to make an annotated bibliography , where you compile full citation 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.

Prevent plagiarism. Run a free check.

To begin organizing your literature review’s argument and structure, be sure you 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 organizing the body of a literature review. 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 summarizing sources in order.

Try to analyze 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 organize 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.

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, you can follow these tips:

• Summarize and synthesize: give an overview of the main points of each source and combine them into a coherent whole
• Analyze and interpret: don’t just paraphrase other researchers — add your own interpretations where possible, 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 transition words and topic sentences to draw connections, comparisons and contrasts

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

When you’ve finished writing and revising your literature review, don’t forget to proofread thoroughly before submitting. Not a language expert? Check out Scribbr’s professional proofreading services !

This article has been adapted into lecture slides that you can use to teach your students about writing a literature review.

Scribbr slides are free to use, customize, and distribute for educational purposes.

Open Google Slides Download PowerPoint

If you want to know more about the research process , methodology , research bias , or statistics , make sure to check out some of our other articles with explanations and examples.

• Sampling methods
• Simple random sampling
• Stratified sampling
• Cluster sampling
• Likert scales
• Reproducibility

 Statistics

• Null hypothesis
• Statistical power
• Probability distribution
• Effect size
• Poisson distribution

Research bias

• Optimism bias
• Cognitive bias
• Implicit bias
• Hawthorne effect
• Anchoring bias
• Explicit bias

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 thesis, dissertation , or research paper , in order to situate your work in relation to existing knowledge.

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

• To familiarize 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 thesis or dissertation . After the introduction , it grounds your research in a scholarly field and leads directly to your theoretical framework or methodology .

A literature review is a survey of credible sources on a topic, often used in dissertations , theses, and research papers . Literature reviews give an overview of knowledge on a subject, helping you identify relevant theories and methods, as well as gaps in existing research. Literature reviews are set up similarly to other  academic texts , with an introduction , a main body, and a conclusion .

An  annotated bibliography is a list of  source references that has a short description (called an annotation ) for each of the sources. It is often assigned as part of the research process for a  paper .  

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 Citation Generator.

McCombes, S. (2023, September 11). How to Write a Literature Review | Guide, Examples, & Templates. Scribbr. Retrieved July 22, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/dissertation/literature-review/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

Other students also liked, what is a theoretical framework | guide to organizing, what is a research methodology | steps & tips, how to write a research proposal | examples & templates, get unlimited documents corrected.

✔ Free APA citation check included ✔ Unlimited document corrections ✔ Specialized in correcting academic texts

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 an academic paragraph (step-by-step guide), five things authors need to know when using..., 7 best referencing tools and citation management software..., maintaining academic integrity with paperpal’s generative ai writing..., research funding basics: what should a grant proposal..., how to write an abstract in research papers..., how to write dissertation acknowledgements, how to structure an essay, leveraging generative ai to enhance student understanding of..., what’s the best chatgpt alternative for academic writing.

Purdue Online Writing Lab Purdue OWL® College of Liberal Arts

Writing a Literature Review

Welcome to the Purdue OWL

This page is brought to you by the OWL at Purdue University. When printing this page, you must include the entire legal notice.

Copyright ©1995-2018 by The Writing Lab & The OWL at Purdue and Purdue University. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, reproduced, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed without permission. Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our terms and conditions of fair use.

A literature review is a document or section of a document that collects key sources on a topic and discusses those sources in conversation with each other (also called synthesis ). The lit review is an important genre in many disciplines, not just literature (i.e., the study of works of literature such as novels and plays). When we say “literature review” or refer to “the literature,” we are talking about the research ( scholarship ) in a given field. You will often see the terms “the research,” “the scholarship,” and “the literature” used mostly interchangeably.

Where, when, and why would I write a lit review?

There are a number of different situations where you might write a literature review, each with slightly different expectations; different disciplines, too, have field-specific expectations for what a literature review is and does. For instance, in the humanities, authors might include more overt argumentation and interpretation of source material in their literature reviews, whereas in the sciences, authors are more likely to report study designs and results in their literature reviews; these differences reflect these disciplines’ purposes and conventions in scholarship. You should always look at examples from your own discipline and talk to professors or mentors in your field to be sure you understand your discipline’s conventions, for literature reviews as well as for any other genre.

A literature review can be a part of a research paper or scholarly article, usually falling after the introduction and before the research methods sections. In these cases, the lit review just needs to cover scholarship that is important to the issue you are writing about; sometimes it will also cover key sources that informed your research methodology.

Lit reviews can also be standalone pieces, either as assignments in a class or as publications. In a class, a lit review may be assigned to help students familiarize themselves with a topic and with scholarship in their field, get an idea of the other researchers working on the topic they’re interested in, find gaps in existing research in order to propose new projects, and/or develop a theoretical framework and methodology for later research. As a publication, a lit review usually is meant to help make other scholars’ lives easier by collecting and summarizing, synthesizing, and analyzing existing research on a topic. This can be especially helpful for students or scholars getting into a new research area, or for directing an entire community of scholars toward questions that have not yet been answered.

What are the parts of a lit review?

Most lit reviews use a basic introduction-body-conclusion structure; if your lit review is part of a larger paper, the introduction and conclusion pieces may be just a few sentences while you focus most of your attention on the body. If your lit review is a standalone piece, the introduction and conclusion take up more space and give you a place to discuss your goals, research methods, and conclusions separately from where you discuss the literature itself.

Introduction:

• An introductory paragraph that explains what your working topic and thesis is
• A forecast of key topics or texts that will appear in the review
• Potentially, a description of how you found sources and how you analyzed them for inclusion and discussion in the review (more often found in published, standalone literature reviews than in lit review sections in an article or research paper)
• Summarize and synthesize: Give an overview of the main points of each source and combine them into a coherent whole
• Analyze and interpret: Don’t just paraphrase other researchers – add your own interpretations where possible, 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 transition words and topic sentence to draw connections, comparisons, and contrasts.

Conclusion:

• Summarize the key findings you have taken from the literature and emphasize their significance
• Connect it back to your primary research question

How should I organize my lit review?

Lit reviews can take many different organizational patterns depending on what you are trying to accomplish with the review. Here are some examples:

• Chronological : The simplest approach is to trace the development of the topic over time, which helps familiarize the audience with the topic (for instance if you are introducing something that is not commonly known in your field). If you choose this strategy, be careful to avoid simply listing and summarizing sources in order. Try to analyze the patterns, turning points, and key debates that have shaped the direction of the field. Give your interpretation of how and why certain developments occurred (as mentioned previously, this may not be appropriate in your discipline — check with a teacher or mentor if you’re unsure).
• Thematic : If you have found some recurring central themes that you will continue working with throughout your piece, you can organize your literature review into subsections that address different aspects of the topic. For example, if you are reviewing literature about women and religion, key themes can include the role of women in churches and the religious attitude towards women.
• Qualitative versus quantitative research
• Empirical versus theoretical scholarship
• Divide the research by sociological, historical, or cultural sources
• Theoretical : In many humanities articles, the literature review is the foundation for the theoretical framework. You can use it to discuss various theories, models, and definitions of key concepts. You can argue for the relevance of a specific theoretical approach or combine various theorical concepts to create a framework for your research.

What are some strategies or tips I can use while writing my lit review?

Any lit review is only as good as the research it discusses; make sure your sources are well-chosen and your research is thorough. Don’t be afraid to do more research if you discover a new thread as you’re writing. More info on the research process is available in our "Conducting Research" resources .

As you’re doing your research, create an annotated bibliography ( see our page on the this type of document ). Much of the information used in an annotated bibliography can be used also in a literature review, so you’ll be not only partially drafting your lit review as you research, but also developing your sense of the larger conversation going on among scholars, professionals, and any other stakeholders in your topic.

Usually you will need to synthesize research rather than just summarizing it. This means drawing connections between sources to create a picture of the scholarly conversation on a topic over time. Many student writers struggle to synthesize because they feel they don’t have anything to add to the scholars they are citing; here are some strategies to help you:

• It often helps to remember that the point of these kinds of syntheses is to show your readers how you understand your research, to help them read the rest of your paper.
• Writing teachers often say synthesis is like hosting a dinner party: imagine all your sources are together in a room, discussing your topic. What are they saying to each other?
• Look at the in-text citations in each paragraph. Are you citing just one source for each paragraph? This usually indicates summary only. When you have multiple sources cited in a paragraph, you are more likely to be synthesizing them (not always, but often
• Read more about synthesis here.

The most interesting literature reviews are often written as arguments (again, as mentioned at the beginning of the page, this is discipline-specific and doesn’t work for all situations). Often, the literature review is where you can establish your research as filling a particular gap or as relevant in a particular way. You have some chance to do this in your introduction in an article, but the literature review section gives a more extended opportunity to establish the conversation in the way you would like your readers to see it. You can choose the intellectual lineage you would like to be part of and whose definitions matter most to your thinking (mostly humanities-specific, but this goes for sciences as well). In addressing these points, you argue for your place in the conversation, which tends to make the lit review more compelling than a simple reporting of other sources.

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.

The only proofreading tool specialized in correcting academic writing

The academic proofreading tool has been trained on 1000s of academic texts and by native English editors. Making it the most accurate and reliable proofreading tool for students.

Correct my document today

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 22 July 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.

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

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

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

What are Literature Reviews?

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

Goals of Literature Reviews

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

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

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

What kinds of sources require a Literature Review?

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

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

Types of Literature Reviews

What kinds of literature reviews are written?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Literature Reviews in the Health Sciences

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

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: Jun 20, 2024 9:08 AM
• URL: https://guides.library.yale.edu/YSNDoctoral

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 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: Jul 8, 2024 11:22 AM
• URL: https://libguides.northwestern.edu/literaturereviews

• Reserve a study room
• Library Account
• Undergraduate Students
• Graduate Students
• Faculty & Staff

Write a Literature Review

• Developing a Research Question
• Database Searching
• Documenting Your Search and Findings
• Discipline-Specific Literature Reviews

Ask Us! Cabell Library

As a student at VCU, VCU Libraries are here to help you succeed!  This guide offers an introduction to conducting a literature review and provides links to the resources and tools we offer.  To navigate, simply click the blue tabs to the left based on type of information you're needing.  

If ever you are in need of research assistance, don't hesitate to consult a specialist  based on your subject area.   

Please provide feedback on this guide at any point by emailing Kelsey Cheshire,  [email protected] . 

What is a Literature Review?

A literature review is an essential component of every research project. Literature reviews ask: What do we know, or not know, about this particular issue/ topic/ subject?  

How well you answer this question depends upon:

• the effectiveness of your search for information
• the quality & reliability of the sources you choose
• your ability to synthesize the sources you select

Literature reviews require “re-viewing” what credible scholars in the field have said, done, and found in order to help you:

• Identify what is currently known in your area of interest
• Establish an empirical/ theoretical/ foundation for your research
• Identify potential gaps in knowledge that you might fill
• Develop viable research questions and hypotheses
• Decide upon the scope of your research
• Demonstrate the importance of your research to the field

A literature review is not a descriptive summary of what you found. All works included in the review must be read, evaluated, and analyzed, and synthesized, meaning that relationships between the works must also be discussed.  

• Next: Developing a Research Question >>
• Last Updated: Oct 16, 2023 1:53 PM
• URL: https://guides.library.vcu.edu/lit-review

• Privacy Policy

Home » Literature Review – Types Writing Guide and Examples

Literature Review – Types Writing Guide and Examples

Table of Contents

Literature Review

Definition:

A literature review is a comprehensive and critical analysis of the existing literature on a particular topic or research question. It involves identifying, evaluating, and synthesizing relevant literature, including scholarly articles, books, and other sources, to provide a summary and critical assessment of what is known about the topic.

Types of Literature Review

Types of Literature Review are as follows:

• Narrative literature review : This type of review involves a comprehensive summary and critical analysis of the available literature on a particular topic or research question. It is often used as an introductory section of a research paper.
• Systematic literature review: This is a rigorous and structured review that follows a pre-defined protocol to identify, evaluate, and synthesize all relevant studies on a specific research question. It is often used in evidence-based practice and systematic reviews.
• Meta-analysis: This is a quantitative review that uses statistical methods to combine data from multiple studies to derive a summary effect size. It provides a more precise estimate of the overall effect than any individual study.
• Scoping review: This is a preliminary review that aims to map the existing literature on a broad topic area to identify research gaps and areas for further investigation.
• Critical literature review : This type of review evaluates the strengths and weaknesses of the existing literature on a particular topic or research question. It aims to provide a critical analysis of the literature and identify areas where further research is needed.
• Conceptual literature review: This review synthesizes and integrates theories and concepts from multiple sources to provide a new perspective on a particular topic. It aims to provide a theoretical framework for understanding a particular research question.
• Rapid literature review: This is a quick review that provides a snapshot of the current state of knowledge on a specific research question or topic. It is often used when time and resources are limited.
• Thematic literature review : This review identifies and analyzes common themes and patterns across a body of literature on a particular topic. It aims to provide a comprehensive overview of the literature and identify key themes and concepts.
• Realist literature review: This review is often used in social science research and aims to identify how and why certain interventions work in certain contexts. It takes into account the context and complexities of real-world situations.
• State-of-the-art literature review : This type of review provides an overview of the current state of knowledge in a particular field, highlighting the most recent and relevant research. It is often used in fields where knowledge is rapidly evolving, such as technology or medicine.
• Integrative literature review: This type of review synthesizes and integrates findings from multiple studies on a particular topic to identify patterns, themes, and gaps in the literature. It aims to provide a comprehensive understanding of the current state of knowledge on a particular topic.
• Umbrella literature review : This review is used to provide a broad overview of a large and diverse body of literature on a particular topic. It aims to identify common themes and patterns across different areas of research.
• Historical literature review: This type of review examines the historical development of research on a particular topic or research question. It aims to provide a historical context for understanding the current state of knowledge on a particular topic.
• Problem-oriented literature review : This review focuses on a specific problem or issue and examines the literature to identify potential solutions or interventions. It aims to provide practical recommendations for addressing a particular problem or issue.
• Mixed-methods literature review : This type of review combines quantitative and qualitative methods to synthesize and analyze the available literature on a particular topic. It aims to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the research question by combining different types of evidence.

Parts of Literature Review

Parts of a literature review are as follows:

Introduction

The introduction of a literature review typically provides background information on the research topic and why it is important. It outlines the objectives of the review, the research question or hypothesis, and the scope of the review.

Literature Search

This section outlines the search strategy and databases used to identify relevant literature. The search terms used, inclusion and exclusion criteria, and any limitations of the search are described.

Literature Analysis

The literature analysis is the main body of the literature review. This section summarizes and synthesizes the literature that is relevant to the research question or hypothesis. The review should be organized thematically, chronologically, or by methodology, depending on the research objectives.

Critical Evaluation

Critical evaluation involves assessing the quality and validity of the literature. This includes evaluating the reliability and validity of the studies reviewed, the methodology used, and the strength of the evidence.

The conclusion of the literature review should summarize the main findings, identify any gaps in the literature, and suggest areas for future research. It should also reiterate the importance of the research question or hypothesis and the contribution of the literature review to the overall research project.

The references list includes all the sources cited in the literature review, and follows a specific referencing style (e.g., APA, MLA, Harvard).

How to write Literature Review

Here are some steps to follow when writing a literature review:

• Define your research question or topic : Before starting your literature review, it is essential to define your research question or topic. This will help you identify relevant literature and determine the scope of your review.
• Conduct a comprehensive search: Use databases and search engines to find relevant literature. Look for peer-reviewed articles, books, and other academic sources that are relevant to your research question or topic.
• Evaluate the sources: Once you have found potential sources, evaluate them critically to determine their relevance, credibility, and quality. Look for recent publications, reputable authors, and reliable sources of data and evidence.
• Organize your sources: Group the sources by theme, method, or research question. This will help you identify similarities and differences among the literature, and provide a structure for your literature review.
• Analyze and synthesize the literature : Analyze each source in depth, identifying the key findings, methodologies, and conclusions. Then, synthesize the information from the sources, identifying patterns and themes in the literature.
• Write the literature review : Start with an introduction that provides an overview of the topic and the purpose of the literature review. Then, organize the literature according to your chosen structure, and analyze and synthesize the sources. Finally, provide a conclusion that summarizes the key findings of the literature review, identifies gaps in knowledge, and suggests areas for future research.
• Edit and proofread: Once you have written your literature review, edit and proofread it carefully to ensure that it is well-organized, clear, and concise.

Examples of Literature Review

Here’s an example of how a literature review can be conducted for a thesis on the topic of “ The Impact of Social Media on Teenagers’ Mental Health”:

• Start by identifying the key terms related to your research topic. In this case, the key terms are “social media,” “teenagers,” and “mental health.”
• Use academic databases like Google Scholar, JSTOR, or PubMed to search for relevant articles, books, and other publications. Use these keywords in your search to narrow down your results.
• Evaluate the sources you find to determine if they are relevant to your research question. You may want to consider the publication date, author’s credentials, and the journal or book publisher.
• Begin reading and taking notes on each source, paying attention to key findings, methodologies used, and any gaps in the research.
• Organize your findings into themes or categories. For example, you might categorize your sources into those that examine the impact of social media on self-esteem, those that explore the effects of cyberbullying, and those that investigate the relationship between social media use and depression.
• Synthesize your findings by summarizing the key themes and highlighting any gaps or inconsistencies in the research. Identify areas where further research is needed.
• Use your literature review to inform your research questions and hypotheses for your thesis.

For example, after conducting a literature review on the impact of social media on teenagers’ mental health, a thesis might look like this:

“Using a mixed-methods approach, this study aims to investigate the relationship between social media use and mental health outcomes in teenagers. Specifically, the study will examine the effects of cyberbullying, social comparison, and excessive social media use on self-esteem, anxiety, and depression. Through an analysis of survey data and qualitative interviews with teenagers, the study will provide insight into the complex relationship between social media use and mental health outcomes, and identify strategies for promoting positive mental health outcomes in young people.”

Reference: Smith, J., Jones, M., & Lee, S. (2019). The effects of social media use on adolescent mental health: A systematic review. Journal of Adolescent Health, 65(2), 154-165. doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2019.03.024

Reference Example: Author, A. A., Author, B. B., & Author, C. C. (Year). Title of article. Title of Journal, volume number(issue number), page range. doi:0000000/000000000000 or URL

Applications of Literature Review

some applications of literature review in different fields:

• Social Sciences: In social sciences, literature reviews are used to identify gaps in existing research, to develop research questions, and to provide a theoretical framework for research. Literature reviews are commonly used in fields such as sociology, psychology, anthropology, and political science.
• Natural Sciences: In natural sciences, literature reviews are used to summarize and evaluate the current state of knowledge in a particular field or subfield. Literature reviews can help researchers identify areas where more research is needed and provide insights into the latest developments in a particular field. Fields such as biology, chemistry, and physics commonly use literature reviews.
• Health Sciences: In health sciences, literature reviews are used to evaluate the effectiveness of treatments, identify best practices, and determine areas where more research is needed. Literature reviews are commonly used in fields such as medicine, nursing, and public health.
• Humanities: In humanities, literature reviews are used to identify gaps in existing knowledge, develop new interpretations of texts or cultural artifacts, and provide a theoretical framework for research. Literature reviews are commonly used in fields such as history, literary studies, and philosophy.

Role of Literature Review in Research

Here are some applications of literature review in research:

• Identifying Research Gaps : Literature review helps researchers identify gaps in existing research and literature related to their research question. This allows them to develop new research questions and hypotheses to fill those gaps.
• Developing Theoretical Framework: Literature review helps researchers develop a theoretical framework for their research. By analyzing and synthesizing existing literature, researchers can identify the key concepts, theories, and models that are relevant to their research.
• Selecting Research Methods : Literature review helps researchers select appropriate research methods and techniques based on previous research. It also helps researchers to identify potential biases or limitations of certain methods and techniques.
• Data Collection and Analysis: Literature review helps researchers in data collection and analysis by providing a foundation for the development of data collection instruments and methods. It also helps researchers to identify relevant data sources and identify potential data analysis techniques.
• Communicating Results: Literature review helps researchers to communicate their results effectively by providing a context for their research. It also helps to justify the significance of their findings in relation to existing research and literature.

Purpose of Literature Review

Some of the specific purposes of a literature review are as follows:

• To provide context: A literature review helps to provide context for your research by situating it within the broader body of literature on the topic.
• To identify gaps and inconsistencies: A literature review helps to identify areas where further research is needed or where there are inconsistencies in the existing literature.
• To synthesize information: A literature review helps to synthesize the information from multiple sources and present a coherent and comprehensive picture of the current state of knowledge on the topic.
• To identify key concepts and theories : A literature review helps to identify key concepts and theories that are relevant to your research question and provide a theoretical framework for your study.
• To inform research design: A literature review can inform the design of your research study by identifying appropriate research methods, data sources, and research questions.

Characteristics of Literature Review

Some Characteristics of Literature Review are as follows:

• Identifying gaps in knowledge: A literature review helps to identify gaps in the existing knowledge and research on a specific topic or research question. By analyzing and synthesizing the literature, you can identify areas where further research is needed and where new insights can be gained.
• Establishing the significance of your research: A literature review helps to establish the significance of your own research by placing it in the context of existing research. By demonstrating the relevance of your research to the existing literature, you can establish its importance and value.
• Informing research design and methodology : A literature review helps to inform research design and methodology by identifying the most appropriate research methods, techniques, and instruments. By reviewing the literature, you can identify the strengths and limitations of different research methods and techniques, and select the most appropriate ones for your own research.
• Supporting arguments and claims: A literature review provides evidence to support arguments and claims made in academic writing. By citing and analyzing the literature, you can provide a solid foundation for your own arguments and claims.
• I dentifying potential collaborators and mentors: A literature review can help identify potential collaborators and mentors by identifying researchers and practitioners who are working on related topics or using similar methods. By building relationships with these individuals, you can gain valuable insights and support for your own research and practice.
• Keeping up-to-date with the latest research : A literature review helps to keep you up-to-date with the latest research on a specific topic or research question. By regularly reviewing the literature, you can stay informed about the latest findings and developments in your field.

Advantages of Literature Review

There are several advantages to conducting a literature review as part of a research project, including:

• Establishing the significance of the research : A literature review helps to establish the significance of the research by demonstrating the gap or problem in the existing literature that the study aims to address.
• Identifying key concepts and theories: A literature review can help to identify key concepts and theories that are relevant to the research question, and provide a theoretical framework for the study.
• Supporting the research methodology : A literature review can inform the research methodology by identifying appropriate research methods, data sources, and research questions.
• Providing a comprehensive overview of the literature : A literature review provides a comprehensive overview of the current state of knowledge on a topic, allowing the researcher to identify key themes, debates, and areas of agreement or disagreement.
• Identifying potential research questions: A literature review can help to identify potential research questions and areas for further investigation.
• Avoiding duplication of research: A literature review can help to avoid duplication of research by identifying what has already been done on a topic, and what remains to be done.
• Enhancing the credibility of the research : A literature review helps to enhance the credibility of the research by demonstrating the researcher’s knowledge of the existing literature and their ability to situate their research within a broader context.

Limitations of Literature Review

Limitations of Literature Review are as follows:

• Limited scope : Literature reviews can only cover the existing literature on a particular topic, which may be limited in scope or depth.
• Publication bias : Literature reviews may be influenced by publication bias, which occurs when researchers are more likely to publish positive results than negative ones. This can lead to an incomplete or biased picture of the literature.
• Quality of sources : The quality of the literature reviewed can vary widely, and not all sources may be reliable or valid.
• Time-limited: Literature reviews can become quickly outdated as new research is published, making it difficult to keep up with the latest developments in a field.
• Subjective interpretation : Literature reviews can be subjective, and the interpretation of the findings can vary depending on the researcher’s perspective or bias.
• Lack of original data : Literature reviews do not generate new data, but rather rely on the analysis of existing studies.
• Risk of plagiarism: It is important to ensure that literature reviews do not inadvertently contain plagiarism, which can occur when researchers use the work of others without proper attribution.

About the author

Muhammad Hassan

Researcher, Academic Writer, Web developer

You may also like

Limitations in Research – Types, Examples and...

Chapter Summary & Overview – Writing Guide...

Research Contribution – Thesis Guide

Implications in Research – Types, Examples and...

Purpose of Research – Objectives and Applications

Research Process – Steps, Examples and Tips

How To Structure Your Literature Review

3 options to help structure your chapter.

By: Amy Rommelspacher (PhD) | Reviewer: Dr Eunice Rautenbach | November 2020 (Updated May 2023)

Writing the literature review chapter can seem pretty daunting when you’re piecing together your dissertation or thesis. As  we’ve discussed before , a good literature review needs to achieve a few very important objectives – it should:

• Demonstrate your knowledge of the research topic
• Identify the gaps in the literature and show how your research links to these
• Provide the foundation for your conceptual framework (if you have one)
• Inform your own  methodology and research design

To achieve this, your literature review needs a well-thought-out structure . Get the structure of your literature review chapter wrong and you’ll struggle to achieve these objectives. Don’t worry though – in this post, we’ll look at how to structure your literature review for maximum impact (and marks!).

But wait – is this the right time?

Deciding on the structure of your literature review should come towards the end of the literature review process – after you have collected and digested the literature, but before you start writing the chapter. 

In other words, you need to first develop a rich understanding of the literature before you even attempt to map out a structure. There’s no use trying to develop a structure before you’ve fully wrapped your head around the existing research.

Equally importantly, you need to have a structure in place before you start writing , or your literature review will most likely end up a rambling, disjointed mess. 

Importantly, don’t feel that once you’ve defined a structure you can’t iterate on it. It’s perfectly natural to adjust as you engage in the writing process. As we’ve discussed before , writing is a way of developing your thinking, so it’s quite common for your thinking to change – and therefore, for your chapter structure to change – as you write. 

Need a helping hand?

Like any other chapter in your thesis or dissertation, your literature review needs to have a clear, logical structure. At a minimum, it should have three essential components – an  introduction , a  body   and a  conclusion . 

Let’s take a closer look at each of these.

1: The Introduction Section

Just like any good introduction, the introduction section of your literature review should introduce the purpose and layout (organisation) of the chapter. In other words, your introduction needs to give the reader a taste of what’s to come, and how you’re going to lay that out. Essentially, you should provide the reader with a high-level roadmap of your chapter to give them a taste of the journey that lies ahead.

Here’s an example of the layout visualised in a literature review introduction:

Your introduction should also outline your topic (including any tricky terminology or jargon) and provide an explanation of the scope of your literature review – in other words, what you  will   and  won’t   be covering (the delimitations ). This helps ringfence your review and achieve a clear focus . The clearer and narrower your focus, the deeper you can dive into the topic (which is typically where the magic lies). 

Depending on the nature of your project, you could also present your stance or point of view at this stage. In other words, after grappling with the literature you’ll have an opinion about what the trends and concerns are in the field as well as what’s lacking. The introduction section can then present these ideas so that it is clear to examiners that you’re aware of how your research connects with existing knowledge .

2: The Body Section

The body of your literature review is the centre of your work. This is where you’ll present, analyse, evaluate and synthesise the existing research. In other words, this is where you’re going to earn (or lose) the most marks. Therefore, it’s important to carefully think about how you will organise your discussion to present it in a clear way. 

The body of your literature review should do just as the description of this chapter suggests. It should “review” the literature – in other words, identify, analyse, and synthesise it. So, when thinking about structuring your literature review, you need to think about which structural approach will provide the best “review” for your specific type of research and objectives (we’ll get to this shortly).

There are (broadly speaking)  three options  for organising your literature review.

Option 1: Chronological (according to date)

Organising the literature chronologically is one of the simplest ways to structure your literature review. You start with what was published first and work your way through the literature until you reach the work published most recently. Pretty straightforward.

The benefit of this option is that it makes it easy to discuss the developments and debates in the field as they emerged over time. Organising your literature chronologically also allows you to highlight how specific articles or pieces of work might have changed the course of the field – in other words, which research has had the most impact . Therefore, this approach is very useful when your research is aimed at understanding how the topic has unfolded over time and is often used by scholars in the field of history. That said, this approach can be utilised by anyone that wants to explore change over time .

For example , if a student of politics is investigating how the understanding of democracy has evolved over time, they could use the chronological approach to provide a narrative that demonstrates how this understanding has changed through the ages.

Here are some questions you can ask yourself to help you structure your literature review chronologically.

• What is the earliest literature published relating to this topic?
• How has the field changed over time? Why?
• What are the most recent discoveries/theories?

In some ways, chronology plays a part whichever way you decide to structure your literature review, because you will always, to a certain extent, be analysing how the literature has developed. However, with the chronological approach, the emphasis is very firmly on how the discussion has evolved over time , as opposed to how all the literature links together (which we’ll discuss next ).

Option 2: Thematic (grouped by theme)

The thematic approach to structuring a literature review means organising your literature by theme or category – for example, by independent variables (i.e. factors that have an impact on a specific outcome).

As you’ve been collecting and synthesising literature , you’ll likely have started seeing some themes or patterns emerging. You can then use these themes or patterns as a structure for your body discussion. The thematic approach is the most common approach and is useful for structuring literature reviews in most fields.

For example, if you were researching which factors contributed towards people trusting an organisation, you might find themes such as consumers’ perceptions of an organisation’s competence, benevolence and integrity. Structuring your literature review thematically would mean structuring your literature review’s body section to discuss each of these themes, one section at a time.

Here are some questions to ask yourself when structuring your literature review by themes:

• Are there any patterns that have come to light in the literature?
• What are the central themes and categories used by the researchers?
• Do I have enough evidence of these themes?

PS – you can see an example of a thematically structured literature review in our literature review sample walkthrough video here.

Option 3: Methodological

The methodological option is a way of structuring your literature review by the research methodologies used . In other words, organising your discussion based on the angle from which each piece of research was approached – for example, qualitative , quantitative or mixed  methodologies.

Structuring your literature review by methodology can be useful if you are drawing research from a variety of disciplines and are critiquing different methodologies. The point of this approach is to question  how  existing research has been conducted, as opposed to  what  the conclusions and/or findings the research were.

For example, a sociologist might centre their research around critiquing specific fieldwork practices. Their literature review will then be a summary of the fieldwork methodologies used by different studies.

Here are some questions you can ask yourself when structuring your literature review according to methodology:

• Which methodologies have been utilised in this field?
• Which methodology is the most popular (and why)?
• What are the strengths and weaknesses of the various methodologies?
• How can the existing methodologies inform my own methodology?

3: The Conclusion Section

Once you’ve completed the body section of your literature review using one of the structural approaches we discussed above, you’ll need to “wrap up” your literature review and pull all the pieces together to set the direction for the rest of your dissertation or thesis.

The conclusion is where you’ll present the key findings of your literature review. In this section, you should emphasise the research that is especially important to your research questions and highlight the gaps that exist in the literature. Based on this, you need to make it clear what you will add to the literature – in other words, justify your own research by showing how it will help fill one or more of the gaps you just identified.

Last but not least, if it’s your intention to develop a conceptual framework for your dissertation or thesis, the conclusion section is a good place to present this.

Example: Thematically Structured Review

In the video below, we unpack a literature review chapter so that you can see an example of a thematically structure review in practice.

Let’s Recap

In this article, we’ve  discussed how to structure your literature review for maximum impact. Here’s a quick recap of what  you need to keep in mind when deciding on your literature review structure:

• Just like other chapters, your literature review needs a clear introduction , body and conclusion .
• The introduction section should provide an overview of what you will discuss in your literature review.
• The body section of your literature review can be organised by chronology , theme or methodology . The right structural approach depends on what you’re trying to achieve with your research.
• The conclusion section should draw together the key findings of your literature review and link them to your research questions.

If you’re ready to get started, be sure to download our free literature review template to fast-track your chapter outline.

Psst… there’s more!

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

27 Comments

Great work. This is exactly what I was looking for and helps a lot together with your previous post on literature review. One last thing is missing: a link to a great literature chapter of an journal article (maybe with comments of the different sections in this review chapter). Do you know any great literature review chapters?

I agree with you Marin… A great piece

I agree with Marin. This would be quite helpful if you annotate a nicely structured literature from previously published research articles.

Awesome article for my research.

I thank you immensely for this wonderful guide

It is indeed thought and supportive work for the futurist researcher and students

Very educative and good time to get guide. Thank you

Great work, very insightful. Thank you.

Thanks for this wonderful presentation. My question is that do I put all the variables into a single conceptual framework or each hypothesis will have it own conceptual framework?

Thank you very much, very helpful

This is very educative and precise . Thank you very much for dropping this kind of write up .

Pheeww, so damn helpful, thank you for this informative piece.

I’m doing a research project topic ; stool analysis for parasitic worm (enteric) worm, how do I structure it, thanks.

comprehensive explanation. Help us by pasting the URL of some good “literature review” for better understanding.

great piece. thanks for the awesome explanation. it is really worth sharing. I have a little question, if anyone can help me out, which of the options in the body of literature can be best fit if you are writing an architectural thesis that deals with design?

I am doing a research on nanofluids how can l structure it?

Beautifully clear.nThank you!

Lucid! Thankyou!

Brilliant work, well understood, many thanks

I like how this was so clear with simple language 😊😊 thank you so much 😊 for these information 😊

Insightful. I was struggling to come up with a sensible literature review but this has been really helpful. Thank you!

You have given thought-provoking information about the review of the literature.

Thank you. It has made my own research better and to impart your work to students I teach

I learnt a lot from this teaching. It’s a great piece.

I am doing research on EFL teacher motivation for his/her job. How Can I structure it? Is there any detailed template, additional to this?

You are so cool! I do not think I’ve read through something like this before. So nice to find somebody with some genuine thoughts on this issue. Seriously.. thank you for starting this up. This site is one thing that is required on the internet, someone with a little originality!

I’m asked to do conceptual, theoretical and empirical literature, and i just don’t know how to structure it

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

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

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

• Print Friendly

• Process: Literature Reviews
• Literature Review
• Managing Sources

Ask a Librarian

Does your assignment or publication require that you write a literature review? This guide is intended to help you understand what a literature is, why it is worth doing, and some quick tips composing one.

Understanding Literature Reviews

What is a literature review  .

Typically, a literature review is a written discussion that examines publications about  a particular subject area or topic. Depending on disciplines, publications, or authors a literature review may be: 

A summary of sources An organized presentation of sources A synthesis or interpretation of sources An evaluative analysis of sources

A Literature Review may be part of a process or a product. It may be:

A part of your research process A part of your final research publication An independent publication

Why do a literature review?

The Literature Review will place your research in context. It will help you and your readers:  

Locate patterns, relationships, connections, agreements, disagreements, & gaps in understanding Identify methodological and theoretical foundations Identify landmark and exemplary works Situate your voice in a broader conversation with other writers, thinkers, and scholars

The Literature Review will aid your research process. It will help you to:

Establish your knowledge Understand what has been said Define your questions Establish a relevant methodology Refine your voice Situate your voice in the conversation

What does a literature review look like?

The Literature Review structure and organization may include sections such as:  

An introduction or overview A body or organizational sub-divisions A conclusion or an explanation of significance

The body of a literature review may be organized in several ways, including:

Chronologically: organized by date of publication Methodologically: organized by type of research method used Thematically: organized by concept, trend, or theme Ideologically: organized by belief, ideology, or school of thought

• Find a focus
• Find models
• Review your target publication
• Track citations
• Read critically
• Manage your citations
• Ask friends, faculty, and librarians

Additional Sources

• Reviewing the literature. Project Planner.
• Literature Review: By UNC Writing Center
• PhD on Track
• CU Graduate Students Thesis & Dissertation Guidance
• CU Honors Thesis Guidance

• Next: Managing Sources >>
• University of Colorado Boulder Libraries
• Research Guides
• Research Strategies
• Last Updated: Jun 20, 2024 3:23 PM
• URL: https://libguides.colorado.edu/strategies/litreview
• © Regents of the University of Colorado

15 Literature Review Examples

Chris Drew (PhD)

Dr. Chris Drew is the founder of the Helpful Professor. He holds a PhD in education and has published over 20 articles in scholarly journals. He is the former editor of the Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education. [Image Descriptor: Photo of Chris]

Learn about our Editorial Process

Literature reviews are a necessary step in a research process and often required when writing your research proposal . They involve gathering, analyzing, and evaluating existing knowledge about a topic in order to find gaps in the literature where future studies will be needed.

Ideally, once you have completed your literature review, you will be able to identify how your research project can build upon and extend existing knowledge in your area of study.

Generally, for my undergraduate research students, I recommend a narrative review, where themes can be generated in order for the students to develop sufficient understanding of the topic so they can build upon the themes using unique methods or novel research questions.

If you’re in the process of writing a literature review, I have developed a literature review template for you to use – it’s a huge time-saver and walks you through how to write a literature review step-by-step:

Get your time-saving templates here to write your own literature review.

Literature Review Examples

For the following types of literature review, I present an explanation and overview of the type, followed by links to some real-life literature reviews on the topics.

1. Narrative Review Examples

Also known as a traditional literature review, the narrative review provides a broad overview of the studies done on a particular topic.

It often includes both qualitative and quantitative studies and may cover a wide range of years.

The narrative review’s purpose is to identify commonalities, gaps, and contradictions in the literature .

I recommend to my students that they should gather their studies together, take notes on each study, then try to group them by themes that form the basis for the review (see my step-by-step instructions at the end of the article).

Example Study

Title: Communication in healthcare: a narrative review of the literature and practical recommendations

Citation: Vermeir, P., Vandijck, D., Degroote, S., Peleman, R., Verhaeghe, R., Mortier, E., … & Vogelaers, D. (2015). Communication in healthcare: a narrative review of the literature and practical recommendations. International journal of clinical practice , 69 (11), 1257-1267.

Source: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/ijcp.12686  

Overview: This narrative review analyzed themes emerging from 69 articles about communication in healthcare contexts. Five key themes were found in the literature: poor communication can lead to various negative outcomes, discontinuity of care, compromise of patient safety, patient dissatisfaction, and inefficient use of resources. After presenting the key themes, the authors recommend that practitioners need to approach healthcare communication in a more structured way, such as by ensuring there is a clear understanding of who is in charge of ensuring effective communication in clinical settings.

Other Examples

• Burnout in United States Healthcare Professionals: A Narrative Review (Reith, 2018) – read here
• Examining the Presence, Consequences, and Reduction of Implicit Bias in Health Care: A Narrative Review (Zestcott, Blair & Stone, 2016) – read here
• A Narrative Review of School-Based Physical Activity for Enhancing Cognition and Learning (Mavilidi et al., 2018) – read here
• A narrative review on burnout experienced by medical students and residents (Dyrbye & Shanafelt, 2015) – read here

2. Systematic Review Examples

This type of literature review is more structured and rigorous than a narrative review. It involves a detailed and comprehensive plan and search strategy derived from a set of specified research questions.

The key way you’d know a systematic review compared to a narrative review is in the methodology: the systematic review will likely have a very clear criteria for how the studies were collected, and clear explanations of exclusion/inclusion criteria. 

The goal is to gather the maximum amount of valid literature on the topic, filter out invalid or low-quality reviews, and minimize bias. Ideally, this will provide more reliable findings, leading to higher-quality conclusions and recommendations for further research.

You may note from the examples below that the ‘method’ sections in systematic reviews tend to be much more explicit, often noting rigid inclusion/exclusion criteria and exact keywords used in searches.

Title: The importance of food naturalness for consumers: Results of a systematic review  

Citation: Roman, S., Sánchez-Siles, L. M., & Siegrist, M. (2017). The importance of food naturalness for consumers: Results of a systematic review. Trends in food science & technology , 67 , 44-57.

Source: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S092422441730122X  

Overview: This systematic review included 72 studies of food naturalness to explore trends in the literature about its importance for consumers. Keywords used in the data search included: food, naturalness, natural content, and natural ingredients. Studies were included if they examined consumers’ preference for food naturalness and contained empirical data. The authors found that the literature lacks clarity about how naturalness is defined and measured, but also found that food consumption is significantly influenced by perceived naturalness of goods.

• A systematic review of research on online teaching and learning from 2009 to 2018 (Martin, Sun & Westine, 2020) – read here
• Where Is Current Research on Blockchain Technology? (Yli-Huumo et al., 2016) – read here
• Universities—industry collaboration: A systematic review (Ankrah & Al-Tabbaa, 2015) – read here
• Internet of Things Applications: A Systematic Review (Asghari, Rahmani & Javadi, 2019) – read here

3. Meta-analysis

This is a type of systematic review that uses statistical methods to combine and summarize the results of several studies.

Due to its robust methodology, a meta-analysis is often considered the ‘gold standard’ of secondary research , as it provides a more precise estimate of a treatment effect than any individual study contributing to the pooled analysis.

Furthermore, by aggregating data from a range of studies, a meta-analysis can identify patterns, disagreements, or other interesting relationships that may have been hidden in individual studies.

This helps to enhance the generalizability of findings, making the conclusions drawn from a meta-analysis particularly powerful and informative for policy and practice.

Title: Cholesterol and Alzheimer’s Disease Risk: A Meta-Meta-Analysis

Citation: Sáiz-Vazquez, O., Puente-Martínez, A., Ubillos-Landa, S., Pacheco-Bonrostro, J., & Santabárbara, J. (2020). Cholesterol and Alzheimer’s disease risk: a meta-meta-analysis. Brain sciences, 10(6), 386.

Source: https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci10060386  

O verview: This study examines the relationship between cholesterol and Alzheimer’s disease (AD). Researchers conducted a systematic search of meta-analyses and reviewed several databases, collecting 100 primary studies and five meta-analyses to analyze the connection between cholesterol and Alzheimer’s disease. They find that the literature compellingly demonstrates that low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels significantly influence the development of Alzheimer’s disease.

• The power of feedback revisited: A meta-analysis of educational feedback research (Wisniewski, Zierer & Hattie, 2020) – read here
• How Much Does Education Improve Intelligence? A Meta-Analysis (Ritchie & Tucker-Drob, 2018) – read here
• A meta-analysis of factors related to recycling (Geiger et al., 2019) – read here
• Stress management interventions for police officers and recruits (Patterson, Chung & Swan, 2014) – read here

Other Types of Reviews

• Scoping Review: This type of review is used to map the key concepts underpinning a research area and the main sources and types of evidence available. It can be undertaken as stand-alone projects in their own right, or as a precursor to a systematic review.
• Rapid Review: This type of review accelerates the systematic review process in order to produce information in a timely manner. This is achieved by simplifying or omitting stages of the systematic review process.
• Integrative Review: This review method is more inclusive than others, allowing for the simultaneous inclusion of experimental and non-experimental research. The goal is to more comprehensively understand a particular phenomenon.
• Critical Review: This is similar to a narrative review but requires a robust understanding of both the subject and the existing literature. In a critical review, the reviewer not only summarizes the existing literature, but also evaluates its strengths and weaknesses. This is common in the social sciences and humanities .
• State-of-the-Art Review: This considers the current level of advancement in a field or topic and makes recommendations for future research directions. This type of review is common in technological and scientific fields but can be applied to any discipline.

How to Write a Narrative Review (Tips for Undergrad Students)

Most undergraduate students conducting a capstone research project will be writing narrative reviews. Below is a five-step process for conducting a simple review of the literature for your project.

• Search for Relevant Literature: Use scholarly databases related to your field of study, provided by your university library, along with appropriate search terms to identify key scholarly articles that have been published on your topic.
• Evaluate and Select Sources: Filter the source list by selecting studies that are directly relevant and of sufficient quality, considering factors like credibility , objectivity, accuracy, and validity.
• Analyze and Synthesize: Review each source and summarize the main arguments  in one paragraph (or more, for postgrad). Keep these summaries in a table.
• Identify Themes: With all studies summarized, group studies that share common themes, such as studies that have similar findings or methodologies.
• Write the Review: Write your review based upon the themes or subtopics you have identified. Give a thorough overview of each theme, integrating source data, and conclude with a summary of the current state of knowledge then suggestions for future research based upon your evaluation of what is lacking in the literature.

Literature reviews don’t have to be as scary as they seem. Yes, they are difficult and require a strong degree of comprehension of academic studies. But it can be feasibly done through following a structured approach to data collection and analysis. With my undergraduate research students (who tend to conduct small-scale qualitative studies ), I encourage them to conduct a narrative literature review whereby they can identify key themes in the literature. Within each theme, students can critique key studies and their strengths and limitations , in order to get a lay of the land and come to a point where they can identify ways to contribute new insights to the existing academic conversation on their topic.

Ankrah, S., & Omar, A. T. (2015). Universities–industry collaboration: A systematic review. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 31(3), 387-408.

Asghari, P., Rahmani, A. M., & Javadi, H. H. S. (2019). Internet of Things applications: A systematic review. Computer Networks , 148 , 241-261.

Dyrbye, L., & Shanafelt, T. (2016). A narrative review on burnout experienced by medical students and residents. Medical education , 50 (1), 132-149.

Geiger, J. L., Steg, L., Van Der Werff, E., & Ünal, A. B. (2019). A meta-analysis of factors related to recycling. Journal of environmental psychology , 64 , 78-97.

Martin, F., Sun, T., & Westine, C. D. (2020). A systematic review of research on online teaching and learning from 2009 to 2018. Computers & education , 159 , 104009.

Mavilidi, M. F., Ruiter, M., Schmidt, M., Okely, A. D., Loyens, S., Chandler, P., & Paas, F. (2018). A narrative review of school-based physical activity for enhancing cognition and learning: The importance of relevancy and integration. Frontiers in psychology , 2079.

Patterson, G. T., Chung, I. W., & Swan, P. W. (2014). Stress management interventions for police officers and recruits: A meta-analysis. Journal of experimental criminology , 10 , 487-513.

Reith, T. P. (2018). Burnout in United States healthcare professionals: a narrative review. Cureus , 10 (12).

Ritchie, S. J., & Tucker-Drob, E. M. (2018). How much does education improve intelligence? A meta-analysis. Psychological science , 29 (8), 1358-1369.

Roman, S., Sánchez-Siles, L. M., & Siegrist, M. (2017). The importance of food naturalness for consumers: Results of a systematic review. Trends in food science & technology , 67 , 44-57.

Sáiz-Vazquez, O., Puente-Martínez, A., Ubillos-Landa, S., Pacheco-Bonrostro, J., & Santabárbara, J. (2020). Cholesterol and Alzheimer’s disease risk: a meta-meta-analysis. Brain sciences, 10(6), 386.

Vermeir, P., Vandijck, D., Degroote, S., Peleman, R., Verhaeghe, R., Mortier, E., … & Vogelaers, D. (2015). Communication in healthcare: a narrative review of the literature and practical recommendations. International journal of clinical practice , 69 (11), 1257-1267.

Wisniewski, B., Zierer, K., & Hattie, J. (2020). The power of feedback revisited: A meta-analysis of educational feedback research. Frontiers in Psychology , 10 , 3087.

Yli-Huumo, J., Ko, D., Choi, S., Park, S., & Smolander, K. (2016). Where is current research on blockchain technology?—a systematic review. PloS one , 11 (10), e0163477.

Zestcott, C. A., Blair, I. V., & Stone, J. (2016). Examining the presence, consequences, and reduction of implicit bias in health care: a narrative review. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations , 19 (4), 528-542

• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd-2/ 25 Number Games for Kids (Free and Easy)
• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd-2/ 25 Word Games for Kids (Free and Easy)
• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd-2/ 25 Outdoor Games for Kids
• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd-2/ 50 Incentives to Give to Students

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

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

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
• Indian J Sex Transm Dis AIDS
• v.35(2); Jul-Dec 2014

Reviewing literature for research: Doing it the right way

Shital amin poojary.

Department of Dermatology, K J Somaiya Medical College, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India

Jimish Deepak Bagadia

In an era of information overload, it is important to know how to obtain the required information and also to ensure that it is reliable information. Hence, it is essential to understand how to perform a systematic literature search. This article focuses on reliable literature sources and how to make optimum use of these in dermatology and venereology.

INTRODUCTION

A thorough review of literature is not only essential for selecting research topics, but also enables the right applicability of a research project. Most importantly, a good literature search is the cornerstone of practice of evidence based medicine. Today, everything is available at the click of a mouse or at the tip of the fingertips (or the stylus). Google is often the Go-To search website, the supposed answer to all questions in the universe. However, the deluge of information available comes with its own set of problems; how much of it is actually reliable information? How much are the search results that the search string threw up actually relevant? Did we actually find what we were looking for? Lack of a systematic approach can lead to a literature review ending up as a time-consuming and at times frustrating process. Hence, whether it is for research projects, theses/dissertations, case studies/reports or mere wish to obtain information; knowing where to look, and more importantly, how to look, is of prime importance today.

Literature search

Fink has defined research literature review as a “systematic, explicit and reproducible method for identifying, evaluating, and synthesizing the existing body of completed and recorded work produced by researchers, scholars and practitioners.”[ 1 ]

Review of research literature can be summarized into a seven step process: (i) Selecting research questions/purpose of the literature review (ii) Selecting your sources (iii) Choosing search terms (iv) Running your search (v) Applying practical screening criteria (vi) Applying methodological screening criteria/quality appraisal (vii) Synthesizing the results.[ 1 ]

This article will primarily concentrate on refining techniques of literature search.

Sources for literature search are enumerated in Table 1 .

Sources for literature search

PubMed is currently the most widely used among these as it contains over 23 million citations for biomedical literature and has been made available free by National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI), U.S. National Library of Medicine. However, the availability of free full text articles depends on the sources. Use of options such as advanced search, medical subject headings (MeSH) terms, free full text, PubMed tutorials, and single citation matcher makes the database extremely user-friendly [ Figure 1 ]. It can also be accessed on the go through mobiles using “PubMed Mobile.” One can also create own account in NCBI to save searches and to use certain PubMed tools.

PubMed home page showing location of different tools which can be used for an efficient literature search

Tips for efficient use of PubMed search:[ 2 , 3 , 4 ]

Use of field and Boolean operators

When one searches using key words, all articles containing the words show up, many of which may not be related to the topic. Hence, the use of operators while searching makes the search more specific and less cumbersome. Operators are of two types: Field operators and Boolean operators, the latter enabling us to combine more than one concept, thereby making the search highly accurate. A few key operators that can be used in PubMed are shown in Tables ​ Tables2 2 and ​ and3 3 and illustrated in Figures ​ Figures2 2 and ​ and3 3 .

Field operators used in PubMed search

Boolean operators used in PubMed search

PubMed search results page showing articles on donovanosis using the field operator [TIAB]; it shows all articles which have the keyword “donovanosis” in either title or abstract of the article

PubMed search using Boolean operators ‘AND’, ‘NOT’; To search for articles on treatment of lepra reaction other than steroids, after clicking the option ‘Advanced search’ on the home page, one can build the search using ‘AND’ option for treatment and ‘NOT’ option for steroids to omit articles on steroid treatment in lepra reaction

Use of medical subject headings terms

These are very specific and standardized terms used by indexers to describe every article in PubMed and are added to the record of every article. A search using MeSH will show all articles about the topic (or keywords), but will not show articles only containing these keywords (these articles may be about an entirely different topic, but still may contain your keywords in another context in any part of the article). This will make your search more specific. Within the topic, specific subheadings can be added to the search builder to refine your search [ Figure 4 ]. For example, MeSH terms for treatment are therapy and therapeutics.

PubMed search using medical subject headings (MeSH) terms for management of gonorrhea. Click on MeSH database ( Figure 1 ) →In the MeSH search box type gonorrhea and click search. Under the MeSH term gonorrhea, there will be a list of subheadings; therapy, prevention and control, click the relevant check boxes and add to search builder →Click on search →All articles on therapy, prevention and control of gonorrhea will be displayed. Below the subheadings, there are two options: (1) Restrict to medical subject headings (MeSH) major topic and (2) do not include MeSH terms found below this term in the MeSH hierarchy. These can be used to further refine the search results so that only articles which are majorly about treatment of gonorrhea will be displayed

Two additional options can be used to further refine MeSH searches. These are located below the subheadings for a MeSH term: (1) Restrict to MeSH major topic; checking this box will retrieve articles which are majorly about the search term and are therefore, more focused and (2) Do not include MeSH terms found below this term in the MeSH hierarchy. This option will again give you more focused articles as it excludes the lower specific terms [ Figure 4 ].

Similar feature is available with Cochrane library (also called MeSH), EMBASE (known as EMTREE) and PsycINFO (Thesaurus of Psychological Index Terms).

Saving your searches

Any search that one has performed can be saved by using the ‘Send to’ option and can be saved as a simple word file [ Figure 5 ]. Alternatively, the ‘Save Search’ button (just below the search box) can be used. However, it is essential to set up an NCBI account and log in to NCBI for this. One can even choose to have E-mail updates of new articles in the topic of interest.

Saving PubMed searches. A simple option is to click on the dropdown box next to ‘Send to’ option and then choose among the options. It can be saved as a text or word file by choosing ‘File’ option. Another option is the “Save search” option below the search box but this will require logging into your National Center for Biotechnology Information account. This however allows you to set up alerts for E-mail updates for new articles

Single citation matcher

This is another important tool that helps to find the genuine original source of a particular research work (when few details are known about the title/author/publication date/place/journal) and cite the reference in the most correct manner [ Figure 6 ].

Single citation matcher: Click on “Single citation matcher” on PubMed Home page. Type available details of the required reference in the boxes to get the required citation

Full text articles

In any search clicking on the link “free full text” (if present) gives you free access to the article. In some instances, though the published article may not be available free, the author manuscript may be available free of charge. Furthermore, PubMed Central articles are available free of charge.

Managing filters

Filters can be used to refine a search according to type of article required or subjects of research. One can specify the type of article required such as clinical trial, reviews, free full text; these options are available on a typical search results page. Further specialized filters are available under “manage filters:” e.g., articles confined to certain age groups (properties option), “Links” to other databases, article specific to particular journals, etc. However, one needs to have an NCBI account and log in to access this option [ Figure 7 ].

Managing filters. Simple filters are available on the ‘search results’ page. One can choose type of article, e.g., clinical trial, reviews etc. Further options are available in the “Manage filters” option, but this requires logging into National Center for Biotechnology Information account

The Cochrane library

Although reviews are available in PubMed, for systematic reviews and meta-analysis, Cochrane library is a much better resource. The Cochrane library is a collection of full length systematic reviews, which can be accessed for free in India, thanks to Indian Council of Medical Research renewing the license up to 2016, benefitting users all over India. It is immensely helpful in finding detailed high quality research work done in a particular field/topic [ Figure 8 ].

Cochrane library is a useful resource for reliable, systematic reviews. One can choose the type of reviews required, including trials

An important tool that must be used while searching for research work is screening. Screening helps to improve the accuracy of search results. It is of two types: (1) Practical: To identify a broad range of potentially useful studies. Examples: Date of publication (last 5 years only; gives you most recent updates), participants or subjects (humans above 18 years), publication language (English only) (2) methodological: To identify best available studies (for example, excluding studies not involving control group or studies with only randomized control trials).

Selecting the right quality of literature is the key to successful research literature review. The quality can be estimated by what is known as “The Evidence Pyramid.” The level of evidence of references obtained from the aforementioned search tools are depicted in Figure 9 . Systematic reviews obtained from Cochrane library constitute level 1 evidence.

Evidence pyramid: Depicting the level of evidence of references obtained from the aforementioned search tools

Thus, a systematic literature review can help not only in setting up the basis of a good research with optimal use of available information, but also in practice of evidence-based medicine.

Source of Support: Nil.

Conflict of Interest: None declared.

• Systematic review
• Open access
• Published: 15 July 2024

Teamwork and implementation of innovations in healthcare and human service settings: a systematic review

• Elizabeth A. McGuier   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-6219-6358 1 ,
• David J. Kolko 1 ,
• Gregory A. Aarons 2 , 3 , 4 ,
• Allison Schachter 5 , 6 ,
• Mary Lou Klem 7 ,
• Matthew A. Diabes 8 ,
• Laurie R. Weingart 8 ,
• Eduardo Salas 9 &
• Courtney Benjamin Wolk 5 , 6  

Implementation Science volume  19 , Article number:  49 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

795 Accesses

10 Altmetric

Metrics details

Implementation of new practices in team-based settings requires teams to work together to respond to new demands and changing expectations. However, team constructs and team-based implementation approaches have received little attention in the implementation science literature. This systematic review summarizes empirical research examining associations between teamwork and implementation outcomes when evidence-based practices and other innovations are implemented in healthcare and human service settings.

We searched MEDLINE, CINAHL, APA PsycINFO and ERIC for peer-reviewed empirical articles published from January 2000 to March 2022. Additional articles were identified by searches of reference lists and a cited reference search for included articles (completed in February 2023). We selected studies using quantitative, qualitative, or mixed methods to examine associations between team constructs and implementation outcomes in healthcare and human service settings. We used the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool to assess methodological quality/risk of bias and conducted a narrative synthesis of included studies. GRADE and GRADE-CERQual were used to assess the strength of the body of evidence.

Searches identified 10,489 results. After review, 58 articles representing 55 studies were included. Relevant studies increased over time; 71% of articles were published after 2016. We were unable to generate estimates of effects for any quantitative associations because of very limited overlap in the reported associations between team variables and implementation outcomes. Qualitative findings with high confidence were: 1) Staffing shortages and turnover hinder implementation; 2) Adaptive team functioning (i.e., positive affective states, effective behavior processes, shared cognitive states) facilitates implementation and is associated with better implementation outcomes; Problems in team functioning (i.e., negative affective states, problematic behavioral processes, lack of shared cognitive states) act as barriers to implementation and are associated with poor implementation outcomes; and 3) Open, ongoing, and effective communication within teams facilitates implementation of new practices; poor communication is a barrier.

Conclusions

Teamwork matters for implementation. However, both team constructs and implementation outcomes were often poorly specified, and there was little overlap of team constructs and implementation outcomes studied in quantitative studies. Greater specificity and rigor are needed to understand how teamwork influences implementation processes and outcomes. We provide recommendations for improving the conceptualization, description, assessment, analysis, and interpretation of research on teams implementing innovations.

Trial registration

This systematic review was registered in PROSPERO, the international prospective register of systematic reviews. Registration number: CRD42020220168.

Peer Review reports

Contributions to the Literature:

This paper reviews more than 20 years of research on teams and implementation of new practices in healthcare and human service settings.

We concluded with high confidence that adaptive team functioning is associated with better implementation outcomes and problems in team functioning are associated with poorer implementation outcomes. While not surprising, the implementation science literature has lacked clear empirical evidence for this finding.

Use of the provided recommendations will improve the quality of future research on teams and implementation of evidence-based practices.

Healthcare and human service providers (e.g., clinicians, case managers) often work in team-based settings where professionals work collaboratively with one another and service recipients toward shared goals [ 1 , 2 ]. Team-based care is intended to include multiple professionals with varying skills and expertise [ 1 , 3 ]. It requires shared responsibility for outcomes and increases team members’ dependence on one another to complete work [ 1 , 3 , 4 ]. Effective team-based care and higher quality teamwork are associated with improvements in care access and quality, patient safety, patient satisfaction, clinical outcomes, and costs [ 2 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 ].

We use the term ‘teamwork’ to refer to an array of team constructs using the input-mediator-outcome-input (IMOI) framework (Fig.  1 ) [ 10 , 11 , 12 ]. The IMOI framework recognizes that team interactions are dynamic and complex, with processes unfolding over time and feedback loops between processes, outcomes, and inputs [ 10 ]. Team inputs include team structure and composition, task demands, and contextual features [ 13 ]. Mediators are aspects of team functioning (i.e., what team members think, feel, and do [ 12 ]) through which inputs influence outcomes. These processes and emergent states may be cognitive, affective, or behavioral [ 5 , 14 , 15 , 16 ]. Team effectiveness outcomes are multidimensional and include team performance as well as team viability and the impact of the team on members’ development [ 12 , 17 , 18 , 19 ].

Conceptual model of team effectiveness and key terminology. Figure adapted from “Advancing research on teams and team effectiveness in implementation science: An application of the Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, Sustainment (EPIS) framework” by E.A. McGuier, D.J. Kolko, N.A. Stadnick, L. Brookman-Frazee, C.B. Wolk, C.T. Yuan, C.S. Burke, & G.A. Aarons, 2023, Implementation Research and Practice , 4 , 26334895231190855. [CC BY-NC]

Implementation of new practices in team-based service settings requires team members to work together to respond to changing demands and expectations. Extensive research has identified barriers and facilitators to implementation of new practices at the individual provider, organization, and system levels; however, the team level has received little empirical attention [ 20 , 21 ]. This is a problem because implementation efforts increasingly rely on teams, and responses to a new practice are likely to be influenced by team characteristics and processes. See McGuier and colleagues [ 20 ] for an overview of team constructs in the context of implementation science and the Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, Sustainment (EPIS) framework [ 22 , 23 ]. Given increasing use of team-based care and interest in implementation strategies targeting teams, examining how teamwork is associated with implementation processes and outcomes is critical. This systematic review identified and summarized empirical research examining associations between teamwork and implementation outcomes when evidence-based practices (EBPs) and other innovations were implemented in healthcare and human service settings.

This systematic review was registered (PROSPERO; registration number: CRD42020220168) and conducted following the published protocol [ 24 ]. The review was conducted in accordance with PRISMA and SWiM guidance [ 25 , 26 ]; relevant checklists are in Additional File 1.

Information sources and search strategy

We searched the following databases: MEDLINE (Ovid), CINAHL (Ebsco), APA PsycINFO (Ovid), and ERIC (Ebsco). Database searches were run on August 7, 2020, and again on March 8, 2022. For all searches, a publication date from 2000 to current was applied; there were no language restrictions (see [ 24 ]). An experienced health sciences librarian (MLK) designed the Ovid MEDLINE search and translated that search for use in the other databases (see additional file in [ 24 ]). The search strings consisted of controlled vocabulary (when available) and natural language terms representing concepts of teamwork and implementation science or innovation or evidence-based practice. Results were downloaded to an EndNote (version X9.3.3) library and duplicate records removed [ 27 ]. Additional relevant articles were identified by hand searches of reference lists of included articles, a cited reference search for included articles in the Web of Science (Clarivate) bibliographic database (completed in February 2023), and requests sent to implementation science listservs and centers for suggestions of relevant articles.

Eligibility criteria

We included empirical journal articles describing studies using quantitative, qualitative, or mixed methods. Study protocols, reviews, and commentaries were excluded. All studies were conducted in healthcare or human service settings (e.g., hospitals, clinics, child welfare) and described the implementation of a practice to improve patient care. Studies of interventions to improve teamwork (e.g., team building interventions) and studies of teams created to implement the innovation (e.g., quality improvement teams, implementation support teams) were excluded. Eligible studies assessed at least one team construct and described its influence on implementation processes and outcomes.

Changes from protocol

Several changes were made from our systematic review protocol (PROSPERO CRD42020220168; [ 24 ]). Specifically, during the full-text review stage, we broadened the scope from team functioning (i.e., processes and states) to include team structure and performance because of the small number of studies that assessed and reported specific processes or states. This change increased the number of included studies. Similarly, because implementation outcomes were often inconsistently defined and poorly reported [ 28 , 29 , 30 ], we broadened our scope to include studies that identified team constructs as implementation determinants (i.e., barriers/facilitators) without explicitly defining and measuring an implementation outcome. Because of changes in university access to bibliographic databases, the cited reference search was performed in the Web of Science only instead of the Web of Science and Scopus. This bibliographic database indexes more than 21,000 scientific journals [ 31 ]. Lastly, because of time and resource constraints, we did not search conference abstracts or contact authors for unreported data.

Selection process and data extraction

Title/abstract screening and review of full-text articles were conducted by pairs of trained independent reviewers in DistillerSR. Conflicts were resolved through re-review, discussion between reviewers, and when needed, discussion with a senior team member (EAM). A final review of all included articles was conducted by EAM. Relevant data from each article was extracted into an Excel spreadsheet by one reviewer (AS). A second reviewer (EAM) conducted a line-by-line review and verification. Our data extraction form was informed by existing forms and guides (e.g., [ 32 , 33 ]). For each included study, we extracted information on measures of teamwork and implementation-relevant outcomes, characteristics of the setting, teams, and participants, analysis methods, and results. For quantitative studies, we recorded correlation coefficients and/or regression coefficients as standardized metrics of association. For qualitative studies, we recorded themes [ 33 ].

Quality and risk of bias assessment

The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) [ 34 ] was used to evaluate quality and risk of bias for each included study. Multiple publications from the same study were evaluated separately because they reported different outcomes. Consistent with Powell and colleagues [ 35 ], quality evaluations were only made for the components of the study relevant to our question. Quality evaluations were conducted by two independent reviewers (EAM, MAD) with discrepancies resolved through consensus discussion. After completing the MMAT, the reviewers jointly categorized each article as high, moderate, or low quality. High quality studies were those with affirmative responses to all MMAT questions. Moderate quality studies had at least one minor methodological problem, and low-quality studies had serious flaws (e.g., qualitative studies with poor coherence between data, analysis, and conclusions; quantitative studies with biased samples and/or inappropriate statistical analyses).

We rated the relevance of each publication to our research question as high, moderate, or low. Highly relevant studies reported implementation of a well-defined innovation, thoroughly described team constructs and implementation outcomes, and clearly linked team constructs to implementation outcomes. Most studies rated as low relevance provided very limited information about teamwork and/or implementation outcomes. Studies that only described barriers/facilitators were rated as low or moderate relevance. Ratings were conducted by two independent reviewers (EAM, CBW) with discrepancies resolved through consensus discussion.

Data synthesis

We conducted a narrative synthesis of included studies following guidelines for synthesis without meta-analysis (SWiM) [ 36 ]. We prioritized reporting of high quality, highly relevant studies. Studies categorized as low quality and/or low relevance were not included in the synthesis but are included in the description of study characteristics to convey the breadth of the literature. We organized studies based on the IMOI framework (i.e., team inputs, processes/states, and outputs) and organized studies of processes/states by affective, behavioral, and cognitive constructs when possible. Because of the heterogeneity in team constructs and implementation outcomes, we were unable to quantitatively synthesize results using meta-analysis or formally investigate heterogeneity; this challenge is common in implementation science systematic reviews [ 30 ]. We assessed the strength of the overall body of evidence with GRADE for quantitative studies [ 37 ] and GRADE-CERQual for qualitative studies [ 38 , 39 ]. GRADE results in ratings of high, moderate, low, or very low quality of evidence for each outcome of interest. GRADE-CERQual results in ratings of high, moderate, low, or very low confidence in each review finding. GRADE ratings were made independently with discrepancies resolved through consensus discussion; GRADE-CERQual ratings were made through iterative discussions as recommended [ 39 ]. All ratings and decisions were made by the first and senior authors.

Search results

Our initial search, after removal of duplicates, yielded 7181 results. The second search (August 2020-March 2022) captured an additional 1341 results. The cited reference search yielded 1961 results. A total of 10,489 results were included in title/abstract review. Figure  2 provides a PRISMA flow diagram for included studies. After full-text review, 58 articles from 55 studies were included in analyses [ 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 , 73 , 74 , 75 , 76 , 77 , 78 , 79 , 80 , 81 , 82 , 83 , 84 , 85 , 86 , 87 , 88 , 89 , 90 , 91 , 92 , 93 , 94 , 95 , 96 , 97 ].

PRISMA flow diagram of included articles. From: Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021;372:n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71 . For more information, visit: http://www.prisma-statement.org/

As shown in Fig.  3 , publications on teamwork and implementation have increased substantially since 2000. Three articles on this topic (5%) were published between 2000 and 2007, 14 (24%) between 2008 and 2015, and 41 (71%) between 2016 and early 2023.

Included articles by year of publication

Study characteristics

Interrater agreement was good for assessment of study quality (81% agreement on MMAT questions) and ratings of relevance (88% agreement). There were 20 high quality articles, 23 moderate quality articles, and 15 low quality articles. Fourteen articles were rated as high relevance, 22 as moderate, and 22 as low relevance. Only 4 were rated as both high quality and high relevance. We report study characteristics for all 58 eligible articles. Our narrative synthesis includes 32 articles categorized as moderate/high quality and moderate/high relevance; it excludes 26 articles categorized as low quality and/or relevance.

Studies were conducted in inpatient healthcare ( n  = 22), outpatient/ambulatory healthcare ( n  = 21), mental health settings ( n  = 9), and other settings (e.g., residential facilities, multiple settings; n  = 6). There were 33 qualitative, 15 quantitative, and 10 mixed methods studies. All quantitative studies were descriptive observational studies.

Most studies examined team processes/states ( n  = 53); fewer examined team inputs ( n  = 27). Only two studies examined a team effectiveness outcome. The most common implementation outcomes were fidelity ( n  = 16) and other specified implementation outcomes (e.g., “extent of use,” “implementation success”) ( n  = 15). Less frequently identified implementation outcomes included adoption ( n  = 5), sustainment ( n  = 4), reach ( n  = 4), and perceptions of the innovation (e.g., acceptability, appropriateness, feasibility; n  = 3). Approximately one-third of studies ( n  = 21) did not report specific implementation outcomes but described implementation determinants (i.e., barriers and facilitators).

Synthesis: team inputs & implementation outcomes

Team inputs examined in studies included team stability/instability and staffing shortages, aspects of team structure and composition, interdependence, and hierarchy and professional roles. Quantitative findings are presented in Table  1 . A CERQual Summary of Qualitative Findings related to team inputs is shown in Table  2 . A CERQual Evidence Profile is provided in Additional File 2 (Table A1).

Team stability/instability and staffing shortages

Team stability/instability (i.e., consistency in membership over time) was examined in one mixed methods study [ 48 , 49 ] and three qualitative studies [ 70 , 81 , 94 ]. A study of surgical teams found variations in membership stability but no association between stability and “implementation success” (i.e., composite measure based on number of uses of new technique, proportion of uses, and changes in use) [ 48 , 49 ]. The authors suggested that stability facilitates the development of team coordination but that selecting small and exclusive teams may limit the spread of innovations within the organization. Another study found that a dedicated and stable team in which members were selected and trained together in the use of a new surgical technique led to quicker uptake and better integration into practice, theorizing that dedicated and stable teams increased trust, motivation, and collaborative problem-solving [ 81 ]. However, dedicated teams were difficult to sustain, and some sites instead used rotating team members from a larger pool of trained staff. In rural primary care, stability of team members facilitated sustainment of memory care clinics [ 70 ]. Lastly, another study in primary care found mixed perceptions of stable vs. rotating staff when adding a new team role (i.e., health coach); some team members liked rotating through different roles while others wanted more stability [ 94 ]. Across studies, we found that dedicated and stable team members facilitate implementation while instability in team membership is a barrier to implementation (moderate confidence).

Qualitative studies identified staffing shortages and turnover on teams as barriers to implementation [ 50 , 67 , 75 , 78 , 92 ]. In Veterans Health Administration (VA) clinics, “inadequate staffing posed an insurmountable barrier,” hindering communication and delivery of optimal care during the implementation of the patient-centered medical home (PCMH) model [ 92 ]. Similarly, staff shortages, turnover, and high workloads hindered guideline implementation in Kenyan hospitals [ 75 ]. Two studies found negative impacts of staffing shortages and turnover on sustainment. Staff turnover contributed to discontinuity in Dialectical Behavior Therapy (DBT) team members [ 78 ], and appropriate staffing (i.e., ensuring manageable workloads) and blocking time for team members were identified as critical to sustainment of a team-based model in the VA [ 67 ]. We found that staffing shortages and turnover hinder implementation (high confidence).

Team structure/composition

Studies examined multiple aspects of team structure and composition, specifically team size, workload, longevity (i.e., how long team members had worked together), history of change, and team member characteristics. Team size was examined in two studies of DBT. In a mixed methods study, team size was positively correlated with fidelity, and qualitative data suggested that team size may increase as a result of successful implementation [ 47 ]. In contrast, another study found that DBT team size was not associated with the number of DBT components adopted and was negatively associated with reach, suggesting reach may reflect high workloads [ 72 ]. In VA mental health clinics, team workload (i.e., number of patients seen) was negatively associated with sustainment of trauma-focused therapies [ 68 ]. In these studies, team longevity and history of change were not associated with implementation outcomes [ 47 , 68 ]. Team member characteristics, specifically team member competency/expertise, experience, and commitment/engagement, were identified as facilitators of implementation in some qualitative studies [ 40 , 70 , 81 , 84 , 95 ].

Overall, few findings could be made from quantitative studies examining team structure and composition. Two studies of team size found mixed results, and workload, longevity, and history of change were examined in only one study each. Across qualitative studies, we found team member competency/expertise, experience, and commitment/engagement facilitate implementation (moderate confidence).

Team interdependence

One quantitative study examined team interdependence [ 65 ]. In multidisciplinary child abuse teams implementing a mental health screening/referral protocol, task interdependence (i.e., reliance on team members to share resources and coordinate workflows) was positively associated with reach but not time to adoption. Outcome interdependence (i.e., extent to which outcomes are evaluated at the team vs. individual level) was significantly negatively correlated with time to adoption but not reach. Neither task nor outcome interdependence were associated with team members’ perceptions of acceptability, appropriateness, or feasibility of the innovation [ 65 ]. Because only one study examined interdependence, no review findings were made.

Hierarchy & professional roles

Hierarchy, power distributions, and rigid roles were identified as barriers to implementation in several qualitative studies [ 50 , 53 , 74 , 97 ]. Flatter hierarchies (i.e., more equal distribution of power and authority) supported guideline implementation in pediatric primary care; practices with low compliance to guidelines had more hierarchical relationships while practices with high compliance had more shared decision-making [ 97 ]. In a setting with hierarchy and rigid division of roles, nurses trained in an innovation reported concern that their decisions would be questioned by physicians without expertise in the innovation but more authority [ 74 ]. Similarly, in surgical teams, rigid professional roles and a hierarchical team culture constrained open discussion and created contention over how and when a “time-out” should be completed, resulting in inconsistent use and poor fidelity [ 50 , 53 ]. Across studies, we found that in multidisciplinary settings, rigid professional roles, hierarchical relationships, and power differentials are barriers to implementation (moderate confidence).

Summary of team inputs & implementation outcomes

There was no overlap among team input variables and implementation outcomes examined in quantitative studies (Table  1 ). Accordingly, we were unable to generate estimates of effects or ratings of evidence quality. Qualitative review findings are shown in Table  2 . We found: 1) Dedicated and stable team members facilitate implementation while instability in team membership is a barrier to implementation (moderate confidence); 2) Staffing shortages and turnover hinder implementation (high confidence); 3) Team member competency/expertise, experience, and commitment/engagement facilitate implementation (moderate confidence); and 4) In multidisciplinary settings, rigid professional roles, hierarchical relationships, and power differentials are barriers to implementation (moderate confidence).

Synthesis: team processes/states & implementation outcomes

Studies examined overall team functioning as well as specific affective states, behavioral processes, and cognitive states. Quantitative findings are presented in Table  3 , and a GRADE Evidence Profile is provided in Additional File 2 (Table A2). A CERQual Summary of Qualitative Findings related to team processes and states is shown in Table  4 . A CERQual Evidence Profile is provided in Additional File 2 (Table A3).

Overall team functioning

Nine studies examined quantitative associations between overall team functioning and implementation outcomes. Team functioning was positively associated with intervention fidelity in 2 of 3 studies. One study examined implementation of transition programs for adolescents with chronic health conditions in 29 teams. More positive team climate, measured by the Team Climate Inventory (i.e., shared vision, participative safety, task orientation, support for innovation), at study start was associated with greater improvements in quality of chronic care delivery one year later [ 45 ]. Additionally, improvements in team climate were associated with greater improvement in care delivery [ 45 ]. These findings were consistent across teams working with different patient populations, suggesting the influence of team climate generalizes across teams and settings [ 45 ]. Greater team climate for innovation was also associated with greater fidelity (i.e., implementation of more program elements) among DBT teams [ 47 ]. In contrast, no significant associations were found between team climate and fidelity to a multifaceted cardiovascular disease management intervention, with qualitative data suggesting variation in the influence of teamwork across practices [ 77 ]. There was no overlap in the metrics of association reported in these studies; therefore, we were unable to generate an estimate of the effect of team functioning on fidelity. The quality of the evidence for fidelity was rated very low because of serious methodological limitations, serious inconsistency, and very serious imprecision due to the small number of studies.

Three studies examined associations between teamwork and adoption, with no significant associations found. The first study found that teamwork climate (i.e., perceived quality of collaboration between personnel) was not significantly associated with adoption of a comprehensive safety program in intensive care units, although there were associations between adoption and organizational constructs (e.g., lower safety climate, more management support) [ 59 ]. In a study of DBT teams, neither positive nor negative team functioning was associated with the number of DBT modes adopted [ 72 ]. The third study assessed relational coordination (i.e., shared goals, communication, respect) in primary care practices implementing patient engagement strategies. Relational coordination was high across practices initially and did not differ for practices with high vs. low adoption, although it increased over time in practices with high adoption [ 83 ]. There was no overlap in the metrics of association reported in these studies; therefore, we were unable to generate an estimate of the effect of team functioning on adoption. The quality of the evidence was rated very low because of serious methodological limitations and very serious imprecision due to the small number of studies.

Reach and sustainment were each examined in one quantitative study. DBT teams with more negative functioning had greater reach, suggesting that reach may reflect high workloads; positive functioning was not associated with reach [ 72 ]. In VA mental health clinics, team functioning was positively correlated with sustainment of evidence-based trauma-focused psychotherapies and significantly associated with sustainment after controlling for covariates [ 68 ]. Two studies examined other implementation outcomes. One found that better team functioning was associated with greater implementation of changes to improve access to care in VA clinics [ 62 ]. In the other, primary care practices reporting better teamwork were more likely to be in later stages of transformation to PCMHs than practices with poorer teamwork [ 88 ]. Because of the small number of studies examining reach, sustainment, and other implementation outcomes, we were unable to generate estimates of effects or ratings of evidence quality for these outcomes.

Our qualitative review findings are based on 12 studies describing how team functioning influenced implementation processes and outcomes. There was considerable variation across studies in how team functioning was defined and what implementation outcomes were examined. Most findings were based on relatively thin and superficial data. Studies occurred in a variety of healthcare settings with varying resources and implemented diverse interventions. We found with high confidence that 1) Adaptive team functioning, characterized by positive affective states (e.g., trust, mutual respect, belonging), effective behavior processes (e.g., frequent communication and coordination), and shared cognitive states (e.g., clear roles, shared mental models of how to provide care), facilitates implementation and is associated with better implementation outcomes; and 2) Problems in team functioning, including negative affective states (e.g., tension, lack of trust), problematic behavioral processes (e.g., conflict, competition, poor communication), and a lack of shared cognitive states (e.g., unclear roles, lack of shared awareness, competing goals), act as barriers to implementation and are associated with poor implementation outcomes.

Affective states

Specific affective states were examined in one quantitative study, three mixed methods studies, and one qualitative study. There was no overlap in the associations between affective states and implementation outcomes reported in quantitative studies (Table  3 ). In a study of multidisciplinary teams responding to child abuse, affective integration (i.e., liking, trust, respect) was positively associated with acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility but not time to adoption or reach [ 65 ]. In DBT teams, cohesion was associated with fidelity, and qualitative data indicated that liking one’s team members and having a shared team identity were critical to effective implementation [ 47 ]. Another study of DBT teams described conflicts and lack of safety and trust within teams resulting in their dissolution [ 78 ].

Edmondson and colleagues found that psychological safety and ease of speaking up (i.e., interpersonal climate that allows members to share questions and concerns) were associated with implementation success [ 48 , 49 ]. In teams with low psychological safety, lower-status team members were hesitant to speak up, hindering change and proficiency in the new practice [ 49 ]. Psychological safety was closely related to learning behavior within the team, including speaking up with questions and concerns [ 48 , 49 ]. From the mixed methods and qualitative studies, we found that trust, cohesion, and psychological safety within teams facilitate implementation by contributing to team members’ willingness to speak up and share experiences and feedback. Negative affective states, fear of judgment, conflict, and lack of safety hinder implementation (moderate confidence).

Behavioral processes

Specific behavioral processes, including communication, learning behavior, and coordination, were examined in two quantitative studies, two mixed methods studies, and five qualitative studies. There was no overlap in the associations between behavioral processes and implementation outcomes reported in quantitative studies (Table  3 ).

Only one study reported quantitative findings for communication. Communication in DBT teams was positively associated with fidelity [ 47 ]. Qualitative studies frequently identified communication as a determinant of implementation (Table  4 ). From qualitative studies, we found that open, ongoing, and effective communication within teams facilitates implementation of new practices; poor communication is a barrier (high confidence).

Quantitative associations between team learning behavior and implementation outcomes were reported in three studies. Team learning behavior in child abuse teams was positively correlated with acceptability and feasibility; it was not associated with appropriateness, time to adoption, or reach [ 65 ]. Learning behavior was positively associated with knowledge and use of innovations in nursing teams [ 91 ] and with implementation success in surgical teams [ 48 ]. Because each of these studies examined different implementation outcomes, we were unable to generate an estimate of the effect of learning behavior or rate evidence quality.

Inter-team communication, specifically speaking up and learning from other teams (i.e., boundary spanning), was identified as a critical part of team learning processes associated with successful implementation [ 48 ]. Communication beyond the team was also identified as a facilitator of implementation in two qualitative studies [ 47 , 75 ]. We found that communication beyond the team facilitates implementation by providing opportunities for team learning (low confidence).

Lastly, two qualitative studies examined coordination among healthcare teams [ 40 , 95 ]. Findings were somewhat ambiguous and based on thin data. We found with low confidence that poor coordination among healthcare professionals interferes with providing high-quality care and can be a barrier to implementation of new approaches (low confidence).

Cognitive states

Specific cognitive states were examined in two quantitative studies. There was no overlap in the associations between cognitive states and implementation outcomes reported (Table  3 ). The first study found no significant associations between shared goals and implementation outcomes [ 65 ]. The second study found that greater team knowledge and skills were associated with greater implementation of key changes to improve access to care; team problem recognition was not associated with implementation [ 62 ].

Two studies reported qualitative findings related to shared goals. In VA mental health teams, shared mission differentiated teams with sustained high reach of EBPs from those with low reach [ 84 ]. Commitment to a shared goal consistent with the EBP supported sustainment [ 84 ]. Similarly, shared goals and vision were identified as a facilitator of DBT programs [ 47 ]. We found that shared goals, mission, and vision within teams facilitate implementation and sustainment (low confidence).

Summary of team processes/states & implementation outcomes

There was very little overlap in the reported associations between team processes/states and implementation outcomes (Table  3 ). We were unable to generate estimates of effects for any associations. When there was sufficient overlap to rate evidence quality, the evidence was rated very low quality (Table A2, Additional File 2).

Qualitative review findings are shown in Table  4 . We found the following: 1) Adaptive team functioning, characterized by positive affective states (e.g., trust, mutual respect, belonging), effective behavior processes (e.g., frequent communication and coordination), and shared cognitive states (e.g., clear roles, shared mental models of how to provide care), facilitates implementation and is associated with better implementation outcomes (high confidence); 2) Problems in team functioning, including negative affective states (e.g., tension, lack of trust), problematic behavioral processes (e.g., conflict, competition, poor communication), and a lack of shared cognitive states (e.g., unclear roles, lack of shared awareness, competing goals), act as barriers to implementation and are associated with poor implementation outcomes (high confidence); 3) Trust, cohesion, and psychological safety within teams facilitate implementation by contributing to team members’ willingness to speak up and openly share experiences and feedback. Negative affective states, fear of judgment, conflict, and lack of safety hinder implementation (moderate confidence); 4) Open, ongoing, and effective communication within teams facilitates implementation of new practices; poor communication is a barrier (high confidence); 5) Communication beyond the team facilitates implementation by providing opportunities for team learning (low confidence); 6) Poor coordination among healthcare professionals interferes with providing high-quality care and can be a barrier to implementation of new approaches (low confidence); and 7) Shared goals, mission, and vision within teams facilitate implementation and sustainment (low confidence).

Synthesis: team effectiveness outcomes & implementation outcomes

Team effectiveness outcomes are multidimensional and include performance (i.e., productivity, efficiency, and quality of the team’s work), team viability, and the impact of the team on members’ development [ 12 , 17 , 18 , 19 ]. Only two studies examined associations between team effectiveness and implementation outcomes. Quantitative findings are presented in Table  5 . One quantitative study found that team members’ ratings of team performance were associated with innovation acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility; performance was not associated with time to adoption or reach [ 65 ]. One qualitative study found that positive outcomes for team members (e.g., increased comfort working together, greater knowledge) were associated with sustainment [ 70 ]. No studies examined associations of team viability and implementation outcomes.

Summary of team effectiveness outcomes & implementation outcomes

Only one quantitative study examined associations between a dimension of team effectiveness and implementation outcomes (Table  5 ). Accordingly, we were unable to generate ratings of evidence quality or estimates of any effects. Similarly, because there was only one qualitative study, we were unable to make a review finding.

This systematic review summarizes over 20 years of empirical literature on the associations between teamwork and implementation outcomes in the context of implementation of new practices in health and human services. Consistent with increased attention to teams and reliance on team-based models of care, as well as the growth of implementation science, studies increased substantially over time. We included studies that used quantitative, qualitative, or mixed methods, yielding a total of 58 articles representing 55 studies. Included studies spanned naturalistic implementation evaluations and planned implementation research.

Key findings with high confidence were: 1) Staffing shortages and turnover hinder implementation, 2) Adaptive team functioning, characterized by positive affective states, effective behavior processes, and shared cognitive states, facilitates implementation and is associated with better implementation outcomes. Problems in team functioning, including negative affective states, problematic behavioral processes, and a lack of shared cognitive states, act as barriers to implementation and are associated with poor implementation outcomes, and 3) Open, ongoing, and effective communication within teams facilitates implementation of new practices; poor communication is a barrier. Our results generally align with conventional wisdom and scientific research outside of healthcare, increasing confidence in the findings. Team effectiveness and change management research in other types of organizations and settings (e.g., military, aviation, space exploration) [ 98 , 99 , 100 , 101 , 102 , 103 ] is largely converging.

Overall, the literature was heterogeneous, and many studies lacked specificity regarding team composition and implementation activities and outcomes. Teamwork was defined and measured inconsistently and with limited precision across studies, which hindered our ability to draw conclusions about how teams influence implementation processes and outcomes. There was also poor measurement and reporting of implementation outcomes in many studies, consistent with a recent review of research on implementation outcomes [ 28 , 29 ]. Many studies used broad measures encompassing multiple dimensions of teamwork. Among studies that assessed specific team processes and states, there was very little overlap across constructs assessed. Qualitative studies identified a rich array of specific team processes and states; research to confirm the presence of these factors in other settings and determine their associations with implementation outcomes is needed.

In Table  6 , we summarize the limitations of existing research on teams and implementation and provide recommendations for future research. Notably, increased specificity and rigor in how teamwork is conceptualized and assessed is needed to advance our understanding of how teamwork affects implementation processes and outcomes. Limited inclusion of teams and team constructs in implementation theories, models, and frameworks has likely contributed to the neglect of teams in implementation science [ 20 ]. Updates to theories, models, and framework should consider integrating teams and team-level constructs [ 20 ]. In addition, there are well-established theories of team effectiveness that could inform hypotheses about how specific team constructs affect implementation [ 104 , 105 , 106 , 107 ].

There is considerable room for improvement in the definition and description of teams and analysis of data from teams. Describing the structure and purpose of teams, as well as interdependencies within the team, can help differentiate teams from groups of individuals who do not constitute a team, an important conceptual distinction that can be difficult to discern in study descriptions. Reporting of sampling and recruitment procedures for teams and team-level response rates is needed. For quantitative studies, use of standardized, validated measures of teamwork constructs is recommended. Researchers should be careful to base inferences about teams on team-level data. Lastly, future research should follow recommendations for improving measurement and reporting of implementation outcomes [ 29 , 108 ] and consider the multilevel context of teams in theory, measurement, analysis, and interpretation of results [ 109 ].

Limitations

As with all systematic reviews, it is possible that we failed to identify some relevant articles or data. We did not search gray literature or conference abstracts or contact authors for unreported data. Our organization of studies by the IMOI framework is likely imperfect given the broad array of team constructs included and poor reporting in many studies. We included diverse innovations intended to improve patient care, including specific EBPs, clinical practice guidelines, models of care, care bundles, procedural changes, and technological innovations. This diversity in objects of implementation reflects ongoing debates about the necessary strength of evidence for objects of implementation and varying thresholds in different contexts [ 110 ]. In this review, high quality studies tended to involve clinical interventions with strong research evidence (e.g., DBT) and clinics in structured and often team-based healthcare systems (e.g., VA). Diversity of innovations and settings provides greater external validity for our findings but may mask some findings specific to certain innovations or settings.

We only included studies of existing teams providing clinical services, however, many studies provided limited descriptions of teams, and in some cases the distinction between clinical teams and implementation/quality improvement teams was unclear. There is increasing attention to use of teams in implementation frameworks [ 20 , 111 ] and evidence that functioning of implementation teams matters [ 112 , 113 ]. Research on the composition and functioning of implementation teams is an important area for future research.

Our systematic review findings indicate that teamwork matters for implementation. However, greater specificity and rigor are needed to advance our understanding of how teamwork influences implementation processes and outcomes. We provide recommendations for improving the conceptualization, description, assessment, analysis, and interpretation of research on teams implementing new practices.

Availability of data and materials

All data cited in this review came from published papers and are therefore already available. The data created as part of the review process are included in this published article and its supplementary information files.

Mitchell P, Wynia M, Golden R, McNellis B, Okun S, Webb CE, et al. Core principles and values of effective team-based health care. NAM Perspectives. 2012. Available from: https://nam.edu/perspectives-2012-core-principles-values-of-effective-team-based-health-care/  Cited 2020 Sep 23

Reiss-Brennan B, Brunisholz KD, Dredge C, Briot P, Grazier K, Wilcox A, et al. Association of integrated team-based care with health care quality, utilization, and cost. JAMA. 2016;316(8):826–34.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Katkin JP, Kressly SJ, Edwards AR, Perrin JM, Kraft CA, Richerson JE, et al. Guiding principles for team-based pediatric care. Pediatrics. 2017;140(2):e20171489.

Lipton HL. Home is where the health is: Advancing team-based care in chronic disease management. Arch Intern Med. 2009;169(21):1945–8.

Dinh JV, Traylor AM, Kilcullen MP, Perez JA, Schweissing EJ, Venkatesh A, et al. Cross-disciplinary care: A systematic review on teamwork processes in health care. Small Group Research. 2020;51(1):125–66.

Article   Google Scholar  

Fiscella K, McDaniel SH. The complexity, diversity, and science of primary care teams. Am Psychol. 2018;73(4):451–67.

Herbert JL, Bromfield LM. A quasi-experimental study of the Multi-Agency Investigation & Support Team (MIST): A collaborative response to child sexual abuse. Child Abuse Negl. 2020;27:104827.

Google Scholar  

Reiss-Brennan B. Mental Health Integration: Normalizing Team Care. J Prim Care Community Health. 2014;5(1):55–60.

Schmutz J, Manser T. Do team processes really have an effect on clinical performance? A systematic literature review. Br J Anaesth. 2013;110(4):529–44.

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Ilgen DR, Hollenbeck JR, Johnson M, Jundt D. Teams in organizations: From input-process-output models to IMOI models. Annu Rev Psychol. 2005;56:517–43.

Kozlowski SWJ, Bell BS. Work groups and teams in organization. In: Borman WC, Ilgen DR, Klimoski RJ, editors. Handbook of Psychology (Vol 12): Industrial and Organizational Psychology. New York: Wiley-Blackwell. 2003. p. 333–75. Available from: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/ https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118133880.hop212017   Cited 2020 Apr 10

Mathieu JE, Maynard MT, Rapp T, Gilson L. Team effectiveness 1997–2007: A review of recent advancements and a glimpse into the future. J Manag. 2008;34(3):410–76.

Cordery JL, Tian AW. Team Design. In: The Wiley Blackwell Handbook of the Psychology of Team Working and Collaborative Processes. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 2017;p. 103–28. Available from: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/ https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118909997.ch5  Cited 2021 Apr 2 

Kozlowski SWJ, Bell BS. Work groups and teams in organizations: Review update. In: Schmitt N, Highhouse S, editors. Handbook of Psychology (Vol 12): Industrial and Organizational Psychology. 2nd ed. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley; 2013. p. 111.

Kozlowski SWJ, Ilgen DR. Enhancing the effectiveness of work groups and teams. Psychol Sci Public Interest. 2006;7(3):77–124.

Marks MA, Mathieu JE, Zaccaro SJ. A temporally based framework and taxonomy of team processes. AMR. 2001;26(3):356–76.

Hackman JR. A normative model of work team effectiveness. Arlington, VA: Office of Naval Research; 1983. Available from: https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/citations/ADA136398  Cited 2022 May 16

Mathieu JE, Hollenbeck JR, van Knippenberg D, Ilgen DR. A century of work teams in the Journal of Applied Psychology. J Appl Psychol. 2017;102(3):452–67.

Rosen MA, Dietz AS. Team performance measurement. In: The Wiley Blackwell Handbook of the Psychology of Team Working and Collaborative Processes. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd; 2017. p. 479–502.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

McGuier EA, Kolko DJ, Stadnick NA, Brookman-Frazee L, Wolk CB, Yuan CT, et al. Advancing research on teams and team effectiveness in implementation science: An application of the Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, Sustainment (EPIS) framework. Implementation Research and Practice. 2023;1(4):26334895231190856.

Williams NJ, Beidas RS. Annual research review: The state of implementation science in child psychology and psychiatry: A review and suggestions to advance the field. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2019;60:430–50.

Aarons GA, Hurlburt M, Horwitz SM. Advancing a conceptual model of evidence-based practice implementation in public service sectors. Adm Policy Ment Health. 2011;38(1):4–23.

Moullin JC, Dickson KS, Stadnick NA, Rabin B, Aarons GA. Systematic review of the Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, Sustainment (EPIS) framework. Implement Sci. 2019;14(1):1.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

McGuier EA, Kolko DJ, Klem ML, Feldman J, Kinkler G, Diabes MA, et al. Team functioning and implementation of innovations in healthcare and human service settings: a systematic review protocol. Syst Rev. 2021;10(1):189.

Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. BMJ. 2009;339. Available from: http://www.bmj.com/content/339/bmj.b2535  Cited 2020 Apr 1

Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;29(372):n71.

Bramer WM, Giustini D, de Jonge GB, Holland L, Bekhuis T. De-duplication of database search results for systematic reviews in EndNote. J Med Libr Assoc. 2016;104(3):240–3.

Lengnick-Hall R, Gerke DR, Proctor EK, Bunger AC, Phillips RJ, Martin JK, et al. Six practical recommendations for improved implementation outcomes reporting. Implement Sci. 2022;17(1):16.

Proctor EK, Bunger AC, Lengnick-Hall R, Gerke DR, Martin JK, Phillips RJ, et al. Ten years of implementation outcomes research: a scoping review. Implement Sci. 2023;18(1):31.

Chapman A, Rankin NM, Jongebloed H, Yoong SL, White V, Livingston PM, et al. Overcoming challenges in conducting systematic reviews in implementation science: a methods commentary. Syst Rev. 2023;12(1):116.

Pranckutė R. Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus: The Titans of Bibliographic Information in Today’s Academic World. Publications. 2021;9(1):12.

Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC). Data collection form. EPOC Resources for review authors. Norwegian Knowledge Centre for the Health Services. 2013. Available from:  http://epoc.cochrane.org/epoc-specific-resources-review-authors .

Noyes J, Lewin S. Extracting qualitative evidence. In: Noyes J, Booth A, Hannes K, Harden A, Harris J, Lewin S, et al., editors. Supplementary Guidance for Inclusion of Qualitative Research in Cochrane Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Version 1 (updated August 2011). Cochrane Collaboration Qualitative Methods Group; 2011. Available from: http://cqrmg.cochrane.org/supplemental-handbook-guidance

Hong QN, Pluye P, Fàbregues S, Bartlett G, Boardman F, Cargo M, et al. Improving the content validity of the mixed methods appraisal tool: a modified e-Delphi study. J Clin Epidemiol. 2019;1(111):49-59.e1.

Powell BJ, Patel SV, Haley AD, Haines ER, Knocke KE, Chandler S, Determinants of implementing evidence-based trauma-focused interventions for children and youth: A systematic review. Adm Policy Ment Health, et al. cited 2020 Feb 20. Available from: 2019. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10488-019-01003-3 .

Article   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Campbell M, McKenzie JE, Sowden A, Katikireddi SV, Brennan SE, Ellis S, et al. Synthesis without meta-analysis (SWiM) in systematic reviews: reporting guideline. BMJ. 2020;16(368):l6890.

Guyatt G, Oxman AD, Akl EA, Kunz R, Vist G, Brozek J, et al. GRADE guidelines: 1. Introduction—GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 2011;64(4):383–94.

Lewin S, Bohren M, Rashidian A, Munthe-Kaas H, Glenton C, Colvin CJ, et al. Applying GRADE-CERQual to qualitative evidence synthesis findings—paper 2: how to make an overall CERQual assessment of confidence and create a Summary of Qualitative Findings table. Implementation Sci. 2018;13(1):11–23.

Lewin S, Booth A, Glenton C, Munthe-Kaas H, Rashidian A, Wainwright M, et al. Applying GRADE-CERQual to qualitative evidence synthesis findings: introduction to the series. Implementation Sci. 2018;13(1):1–10.

Adjognon OL, Shin MH, Steffen MJA, Moye J, Solimeo S, Sullivan JL. Factors affecting primary care implementation for older veterans with multimorbidity in Veterans Health Administration (VA). Health Serv Res. 2021;56(S1):1057–68.

Alidina S, Chatterjee P, Zanial N, Alreja SS, Balira R, Barash D, et al. Improving surgical quality in low-income and middle-income countries: why do some health facilities perform better than others? BMJ Qual Saf. 2021;30(12):937–49.

Boltey EM, Iwashyna TJ, Hyzy RC, Watson SR, Ross C, Costa DK. Ability to predict team members’ behaviors in ICU teams is associated with routine ABCDE implementation. J Crit Care. 2019;51:192–7.

Chenoweth L, Jeon YH, Stein-Parbury J, Forbes I, Fleming R, Cook J, et al. PerCEN trial participant perspectives on the implementation and outcomes of person-centered dementia care and environments. Int Psychogeriatr. 2015;27(12):2045–57.

Costa DK, Valley TS, Miller MA, Manojlovich M, Watson SR, McLellan P, et al. ICU team composition and its association with ABCDE implementation in a quality collaborative. J Crit Care. 2018;44:1–6.

Cramm JM, Strating MMH, Nieboer AP. The role of team climate in improving the quality of chronic care delivery: a longitudinal study among professionals working with chronically ill adolescents in transitional care programmes. BMJ Open. 2014;4(5):e005369.

DePuccio MJ, Gaughan AA, Sova LN, MacEwan SR, Walker DM, Gregory ME, et al. An examination of the barriers to and facilitators of implementing nurse-driven protocols to remove indwelling urinary catheters in acute care hospitals. The Joint Commission Journal on Quality and Patient Safety. 2020;46(12):691–8.

Ditty MS, Landes SJ, Doyle A, Beidas RS. It takes a village: A mixed method analysis of inner setting variables and Dialectical Behavior Therapy implementation. Adm Policy Ment Health. 2015;42(6):672–81.

Edmondson AC. Speaking up in the operating room: How team leaders promote learning in interdisciplinary action teams. J Manage Stud. 2003;40(6):1419–52.

Edmondson AC, Bohmer RM, Pisano GP. Disrupted routines: Team learning and new technology implementation in hospitals. Adm Sci Q. 2001;46(4):685–716.

Gillespie BM, Chaboyer W, Wallis M, Fenwick C. Why isn’t “time out” being implemented? An exploratory study. Qual Saf Health Care. 2010;19(2):103–6.

Gillespie BM, Harbeck E, Lavin J, Gardiner T, Withers TK, Marshall AP. Using normalisation process theory to evaluate the implementation of a complex intervention to embed the surgical safety checklist. BMC Health Serv Res. 2018;18(1):170.

Gillespie BM, Marshall AP, Gardiner T, Lavin J, Withers TK. Impact of workflow on the use of the Surgical Safety Checklist: a qualitative study: Surgical Safety Checklist and work flow. ANZ J Surg. 2016;86(11):864–7.

Gillespie BM, Withers TK, Lavin J, Gardiner T, Marshall AP. Factors that drive team participation in surgical safety checks: a prospective study. Patient Saf Surg. 2016;10(3):1–9.

Gosling AS. Clinical team functioning and IT innovation: A study of the diffusion of a point-of-care online evidence system. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2003;10(3):244–51.

Graetz I, Huang J, Brand R, Shortell SM, Rundall TG, Bellows J, et al. The impact of electronic health records and teamwork on diabetes care quality. American Journal of Managed Care. 2015;21(12):878–84.

PubMed   Google Scholar  

Haider S, Ali RF, Ahmed M, Humayon AA, Sajjad M, Ahmad J. Barriers to implementation of emergency obstetric and neonatal care in rural Pakistan. Sawyer A, editor. PLoS ONE. 2019;14(11):e0224161.

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Harvey C, Killaspy H, Martino S, White S, Priebe S, Wright C, et al. A comparison of the implementation of Assertive Community Treatment in Melbourne, Australia and London. England Epidemiol Psychiatr Sci. 2011;20(2):151–61.

Harvey C, Killaspy H, Martino S, Johnson S. Implementation of Assertive Community Treatment in Australia: Model fidelity, patient characteristics and staff experiences. Community Ment Health J. 2012;48(5):652–61.

Hsu YJ, Marsteller JA. Who applies an intervention to influence cultural attributes in a quality improvement collaborative? J Patient Saf. 2020;16(1):1–6.

Irimu GW, Greene A, Gathara D, Kihara H, Maina C, Mbori-Ngacha D, et al. Explaining the uptake of paediatric guidelines in a Kenyan tertiary hospital – mixed methods research. BMC Health Serv Res. 2014;14(1):119.

Lall D, Engel N, Devadasan N, Horstman K, Criel B. Team-based primary health care for non-communicable diseases: complexities in South India. Health Policy Plan. 2020;35(Supplement_2):ii22-34.

Lukas CV, Mohr D, Meterko M. Team effectiveness and organizational context in the implementation of a clinical innovation. Qual Manag Health Care. 2009;18(1):25–39.

Mariani E, Vernooij-Dassen M, Koopmans R, Engels Y, Chattat R. Shared decision-making in dementia care planning: barriers and facilitators in two European countries. Aging Ment Health. 2017;21(1):31–9.

Martinez RN, Hogan TP, Balbale S, Lones K, Goldstein B, Woo C, et al. Sociotechnical perspective on implementing clinical video telehealth for veterans with spinal cord injuries and disorders. Telemedicine and e-Health. 2017;23(7):567–76.

McGuier EA, Aarons GA, Byrne KA, Campbell KA, Keeshin B, Rothenberger SD, et al. Associations between teamwork and implementation outcomes in multidisciplinary cross-sector teams implementing a mental health screening and referral protocol. Implementation Science Communications. 2023;4(1):13.

Meloncelli N, Barnett A, de Jersey S. Staff resourcing, guideline implementation and models of care for gestational diabetes mellitus management. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2020;60(1):115–22.

Miller CJ, Kim B, Connolly SL, Spitzer EG, Brown M, Bailey HM, et al. Sustainability of the Collaborative Chronic Care Model in outpatient mental health teams three years post-Implementation: A qualitative analysis. Adm Policy Ment Health. 2023;50(1):151–9.

Mohr DC, Rosen CS, Schnurr PP, Orazem RJ, Noorbaloochi S, Clothier BA, et al. The influence of team functioning and workload on sustainability of trauma-focused evidence-based psychotherapies. PS. 2018;69(8):879–86.

Morgan D, Kosteniuk J, O’Connell ME, Kirk A, Stewart NJ, Seitz D, et al. Barriers and facilitators to development and implementation of a rural primary health care intervention for dementia: a process evaluation. BMC Health Serv Res. 2019;19(1):709.

Morgan D, Kosteniuk J, O’Connell ME, Seitz D, Elliot V, Bayly M, et al. Factors influencing sustainability and scale-up of rural primary healthcare memory clinics: perspectives of clinic team members. BMC Health Serv Res. 2022;22(1):148.

Munce SEP, Graham ID, Salbach NM, Jaglal SB, Richards CL, Eng JJ, et al. Perspectives of health care professionals on the facilitators and barriers to the implementation of a stroke rehabilitation guidelines cluster randomized controlled trial. BMC Health Serv Res. 2017;17(1):440.

Navarro-Haro MV, Harned MS, Korslund KE, DuBose A, Chen T, Ivanoff A, et al. Predictors of adoption and reach following Dialectical Behavior Therapy Intensive Training™. Community Ment Health J. 2019;55(1):100–11.

Newbould L, Ariss S, Mountain G, Hawley MS. Exploring factors that affect the uptake and sustainability of videoconferencing for healthcare provision for older adults in care homes: a realist evaluation. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2021;21(1):13.

Nyondo-Mipando AL, Woo Kinshella ML, Bohne C, Suwedi-Kapesa LC, Salimu S, Banda M, et al. Barriers and enablers of implementing bubble Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (CPAP): Perspectives of health professionals in Malawi. Ameh CA, editor. PLoS ONE. 2020;15(2):e0228915.

Nzinga J, Mbindyo P, Mbaabu L, Warira A, English M. Documenting the experiences of health workers expected to implement guidelines during an intervention study in Kenyan hospitals. Implementation Sci. 2009;4(1):44.

Papoutsi C, Poots A, Clements J, Wyrko Z, Offord N, Reed JE. Improving patient safety for older people in acute admissions: implementation of the Frailsafe checklist in 12 hospitals across the UK. Age Ageing. 2018;47(2):311–7.

Patel B, Usherwood T, Harris M, Patel A, Panaretto K, Zwar N, et al. What drives adoption of a computerised, multifaceted quality improvement intervention for cardiovascular disease management in primary healthcare settings? A mixed methods analysis using normalisation process theory. Implementation Sci. 2018;13(1):140.

Popowich AD, Mushquash AR, Pearson E, Schmidt F, Mushquash CJ. Barriers and facilitators affecting the sustainability of dialectical behaviour therapy programmes: A qualitative study of clinician perspectives. Couns Psychother Res. 2020;20(1):68–80.

Prom MC, Canelos V, Fernandez PJ, Gergen Barnett K, Gordon CM, Pace CA, et al. Implementation of integrated behavioral health care in a large medical center: Benefits, challenges, and recommendations. J Behav Health Serv Res. 2021;48(3):346–62.

Provost S, Pineault R, Grimard D, Pérez J, Fournier M, Lévesque Y, et al. Implementation of an integrated primary care cardiometabolic risk prevention and management network in Montréal: does greater coordination of care with primary care physicians have an impact on health outcomes? Health Promot Chronic Dis Prev Can. 2017;37(4):105–13.

Randell R, Honey S, Alvarado N, Greenhalgh J, Hindmarsh J, Pearman A, et al. Factors supporting and constraining the implementation of robot-assisted surgery: a realist interview study. BMJ Open. 2019;9(6):e028635.

Robbins J, McAlearney AS. Encouraging employees to speak up to prevent infections: Opportunities to leverage quality improvement and care management processes. Am J Infect Control. 2016;44(11):1224–30.

Rodriguez HP, Poon BY, Wang E, Shortell SM. Linking practice adoption of patient engagement strategies and relational coordination to patient-reported outcomes in accountable care organizations. Milbank Q. 2019;97(3):692–735.

Sayer NA, Rosen CS, Bernardy NC, Cook JM, Orazem RJ, Chard KM, et al. Context matters: Team and organizational factors associated with reach of evidence-based psychotherapies for PTSD in the Veterans Health Administration. Adm Policy Ment Health. 2017;44(6):904–18.

Shin MH, Montano ARL, Adjognon OL, Harvey KLL, Solimeo SL, Sullivan JL. Identification of implementation strategies using the CFIR-ERIC matching tool to mitigate barriers in a primary care model for older veterans. Gerontologist. 2022;63(3):439–50.

Sopcak N, Aguilar C, O’Brien MA, Nykiforuk C, Aubrey-Bassler K, Cullen R, et al. Implementation of the BETTER 2 program: a qualitative study exploring barriers and facilitators of a novel way to improve chronic disease prevention and screening in primary care. Implementation Sci. 2016;11(1):158.

Steinmo SH, Michie S, Fuller C, Stanley S, Stapleton C, Stone SP. Bridging the gap between pragmatic intervention design and theory: using behavioural science tools to modify an existing quality improvement programme to implement “Sepsis Six.” Implementation Sci. 2016;11(1):14.

Stout S, Zallman L, Arsenault L, Sayah A, Hacker K. Developing high-functioning teams: Factors associated with operating as a “real team” and implications for patient-centered medical home development. Inquiry. 2017;12(54):0046958017707296.

Svensson B, Hansson L, Markström U, Lexén A. What matters when implementing Flexible Assertive Community Treatment in a Swedish healthcare context: A two-year implementation study. Int J Ment Health. 2017;46(4):284–98.

Tadyanemhandu C, van Aswegen H, Ntsiea V. Barriers and facilitators to implementation of early mobilisation of critically ill patients in Zimbabwean and South African public sector hospitals: a qualitative study. Disabil Rehabil. 2021;44(22):6699–709.

Timmermans O, Van Linge R, Van Petegem P, Van Rompaey B, Denekens J. A contingency perspective on team learning and innovation in nursing: Team learning and innovation in nursing teams. J Adv Nurs. 2013;69(2):363–73.

Tuepker A, Kansagara D, Skaperdas E, Nicolaidis C, Joos S, Alperin M, et al. “We’ve not gotten even close to what we want to do”: A qualitative study of early patient-centered medical home implementation. J GEN INTERN MED. 2014;29(S2):614–22.

van Bruggen S, Kasteleyn MJ, Rauh SP, Meijer JS, Busch KJG, Numans ME, et al. Experiences with tailoring of primary diabetes care in well-organised general practices: a mixed-methods study. BMC Health Serv Res. 2021;21(1):1218.

Van der Wees PJ, Friedberg MW, Guzman EA, Ayanian JZ, Rodriguez HP. Comparing the implementation of team approaches for improving diabetes care in community health centers. BMC Health Serv Res. 2014;14(1):608.

von Meyenfeldt EM, van Nassau F, de Betue CTI, Barberio L, Schreurs WH, Marres GMH, et al. Implementing an enhanced recovery after thoracic surgery programme in the Netherlands: a qualitative study investigating facilitators and barriers for implementation. BMJ Open. 2022;12(1):e051513.

Wakefield BJ, Lampman MA, Paez MB, Stewart GL. Care management and care coordination within a patient-centered medical home. J Nurs Admin. 2020;50(11):565–70.

Wiener-Ogilvie S, Huby G, Pinnock H, Gillies J, Sheikh A. Practice organisational characteristics can impact on compliance with the BTS/SIGN asthma guideline: Qualitative comparative case study in primary care. BMC Fam Pract. 2008;9(1):32.

Errida A, Lotfi B. The determinants of organizational change management success: Literature review and case study. International Journal of Engineering Business Management. 2021;1(13):18479790211016270.

Phillips J, Klein JD. Change management: From theory to practice. TechTrends. 2023;67(1):189–97.

Rousseau DM, ten Have S. Evidence-based change management. Organ Dyn. 2022;51(3):100899.

Goodwin GF, Blacksmith N, Coats MR. The science of teams in the military: Contributions from over 60 years of research. Am Psychol. 2018;73(4):322–33.

DiazGranados D, Woods JJ, Wilder A, Curtis MT. Team dynamics in the air: A review of team research relevant to aviation. Human factors in aviation and aerospace. 2023. p. 199–215.

Salas E, Tannenbaum SI, Kozlowski SWJ, Miller CA, Mathieu JE, Vessey WB. Teams in space exploration: A new frontier for the science of team effectiveness. Curr Dir Psychol Sci. 2015;24(3):200–7.

Hackman JR. From causes to conditions in group research. J Organ Behav. 2012;33(3):428–44.

Tannenbaum SI, Salas E. Teams that work: The seven drivers of team effectiveness. Illustrated. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 2020. p. 272.

Book   Google Scholar  

Tuckman BW. Developmental sequence in small groups. Psychol Bull. 1965;63:384–99.

Salas E, Stagl KC, Burke CS. 25 years of team effectiveness in organizations: Research themes and emerging needs. In: International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology 2004. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 2004; p. 47–91. Available from: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/ https://doi.org/10.1002/0470013311.ch2    Cited 2022 May 16

Proctor EK, Silmere H, Raghavan R, Hovmand P, Aarons G, Bunger A, et al. Outcomes for implementation research: Conceptual distinctions, measurement challenges, and research agenda. Adm Policy Ment Health. 2011;38(2):65–76.

Lengnick-Hall R, Williams NJ, Ehrhart MG, Willging CE, Bunger AC, Beidas RS, et al. Eight characteristics of rigorous multilevel implementation research: a step-by-step guide. Implement Sci. 2023;18(1):52.

Wensing M, Sales A, Aarons GA, Xu D (Roman), Wilson P. Evidence for objects of implementation in healthcare: considerations for Implementation Science and Implementation Science Communications. Implementation Sci. 2022;17(1):83.

Damschroder LJ, Reardon CM, Widerquist MAO, Lowery J. The updated Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research based on user feedback. Implement Sci. 2022;17(1):75.

Shortell SM, Marsteller JA, Lin M, Pearson ML, Wu SY, Mendel P, et al. The role of perceived team effectiveness in improving chronic illness care. Med Care. 2004;42(11):1040–8.

Yakovchenko V, Morgan TR, Chinman MJ, Powell BJ, Gonzalez R, Park A, et al. Mapping the road to elimination: a 5-year evaluation of implementation strategies associated with hepatitis C treatment in the veterans health administration. BMC Health Serv Res. 2021;21(1):1348.

Download references

Acknowledgements

Thank you to Ikzzui Chu, Jamie Feldman, Grace Kinkler, Rachael Park, and Jaely Wright for their assistance with article screening.

This work was supported by the National Institute of Mental Health grants MH123729 (EAM), MH124914 (DJK), and MH126231 (GAA), the National Cancer Institute U01CA275118 (GAA), National Institute on Drug Abuse R01DA049891 (GAA), the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality grant R18HS026862 (CBW), and the Collaboration and Conflict Research Lab at Carnegie Mellon University Tepper School of Business. The content of this manuscript does not represent the views of funding agencies and is solely the responsibility of the authors.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Psychiatry, School of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, 3811 O’Hara Street, Pittsburgh, PA, 15213, USA

Elizabeth A. McGuier & David J. Kolko

Department of Psychiatry, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA

Gregory A. Aarons

ACTRI Dissemination and Implementation Science Center, UC San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA

Child and Adolescent Services Research Center, San Diego, CA, USA

Department of Psychiatry, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA

Allison Schachter & Courtney Benjamin Wolk

Penn Implementation Science Center at the Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA

Health Sciences Library System, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA

Mary Lou Klem

Tepper School of Business, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, USA

Matthew A. Diabes & Laurie R. Weingart

Department of Psychological Sciences, Rice University, Houston, TX, USA

Eduardo Salas

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

EAM conceptualized and developed the protocol for this review, participated in article screening, data extraction, quality appraisal, and analysis, and led manuscript development and writing. DJK, GAA, LRW, ES, and CBW provided guidance and input into the protocol and methods and interpretation of results. AS participated in article screening, data extraction, and preparation of supplementary files. MLK developed the search strategy and conducted database searches. MAD participated in quality appraisal. DJK, GAA, LRW, ES, and CBW reviewed multiple drafts of the manuscript and provided critical input and editing. All authors reviewed and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Elizabeth A. McGuier .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Competing interests.

GAA is a Co-Editor-in-Chief of Implementation Science and on the Editorial Board of Implementation Science Communications ; all decisions on this paper were made by another editor. The authors declare that they have no other competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

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

Supplementary Information

Supplementary material 1., supplementary material 2., 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.

McGuier, E.A., Kolko, D.J., Aarons, G.A. et al. Teamwork and implementation of innovations in healthcare and human service settings: a systematic review. Implementation Sci 19 , 49 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-024-01381-9

Download citation

Received : 18 January 2024

Accepted : 07 July 2024

Published : 15 July 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-024-01381-9

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

• Implementation outcomes

Implementation Science

ISSN: 1748-5908

• Submission enquiries: Access here and click Contact Us
• General enquiries: [email protected]

Tracing the contours of the ecosocial project: A review of policy proposals

• Fromberg, Christian
• Lund, Jens Friis

Recent years have seen a growth in academic literature proposing a variety of ecosocial policies that seek to simultaneously advance environmental and social goals. However, the many proposals largely remain fragmented and scattered, making it difficult to see the ecosocial project as a broader coherent political agenda. This paper seeks to address this issue, through a systematic literature review, focusing on ecosocial proposals that directly or indirectly facilitate a downscaling of production and consumption in high-income countries. The review revealed 126 different policy proposals across 73 academic texts. These were categorized into five broad themes: democracy & participation, income & employment, redistributive taxation, consumption regulation, and social services. The categories illustrate the ecosocial project as consisting of unifying goals associated with these five themes. While the existing literature illustrates that the ecosocial project has much to offer in terms of addressing the socio-ecological and democratic crises in high-income countries, considerable gaps remain. Specifically, more research is arguably needed on (1) political strategy (2) detailing of individual policy proposals and (3) policy mixes.

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Open access
• Published: 20 July 2024

The influence of mentorship and working environments on foreign language teachers’ research motivation in China

• Yanping Li   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-6741-7132 1 ,
• Lawrence Jun Zhang   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-1025-1746 2 &
• Naashia Mohamed 2  

Humanities and Social Sciences Communications volume  11 , Article number:  942 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

512 Accesses

Metrics details

• Language and linguistics

Teachers at Higher Education (HE) institutions are expected to do research. However, the level of motivation to engage in research varies with various institutional factors affecting teachers’ research motivation. Previous research has shown the need to better understand these factors to facilitate teachers’ research motivation. This mixed methods study with 536 English as a foreign language (EFL) teacher participants from Chinese universities investigates the relationship between mentorship, working environment and teachers’ research motivation. Our analysis of the questionnaire data using Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) shows the significant influence of working environments on teachers’ research motivation. Qualitative data from semi-structured interviews and diaries were thematically analysed to reveal that the examined factors have different impacts on teachers’ research motivation on the basis of different university types. Both mentorship and working environments had an influence on teachers’ research motivation. Teachers from “Project 985” and “Project 211” universities had a more supportive working environment than those teachers at ordinary/regular universities who appeared to have insufficient mentorship, poor working environments, inadequate time support, and deficient opportunities to attend academic conferences that affected these teachers’ research motivation negatively. The implications of our study are that university administrators and policymakers could develop practical mentorship programmes with effective assessment measurements of the mentoring process and stipulate relevant policies to provide conducive working environments, especially for teachers from ordinary/regular universities, to enhance teachers’ research motivation and improve their research productivity.

Similar content being viewed by others

Exploring the employment motivation, job satisfaction and dissatisfaction of university English instructors in public institutions: a Chinese case study analysis

‘Making it possible’: the complex dynamics of university foreign language teacher agency for research in funding applications

A quantitative study on the impact of working environment on the well-being of teachers in China’s private colleges

Introduction.

Research is, and has long been, a central activity of universities (Brew and Lucas 2009 ). The research productivity of universities is an important or key performance index when it comes to their ranking either at home or abroad, and it is also well recognised as an indication of their influence and competitiveness (Morze et al. 2022 ). Higher education (HE) institutions are engaged in a toxic race to reach the prestigious rankings that bring in revenue and status. Amidst this competitive climate, HE teachers are under pressure to perform while institutions struggle to attain the status of world-class research universities (Sondari et al. 2016 ). Faculty members at universities are expected to publish not only nationally but also internationally (Anderson and Shannon 1988 ; Lucas and Murry 2016 ) with the aphorism “publish or perish” used to indicate the reality of the pressures that academics endure (Zhang 2021 ; Nygaard 2017 ). Teachers’ research performance also determines their promotion and job security; therefore, teachers struggled to publish their work in peer-review journals, and most often in highly-ranked journals, those covered in indexes such as the Science Citation Index Expanded (SCIE), the Arts and Humanities Citation Index (AHCI), or the Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI) (Zhou et al. 2022 ).

Given that academic publications are predominantly in English, maintaining the level of high-quality publications is a particular challenge for universities in non-English dominant countries. For example, according to the Google Scholar metrics, the top 100 journals publish research in 11 languages, including Japanese, Korean, Polish, etc., but not in Chinese. When comparing with other countries, such as Spain, India, Swiss and so on, in Google Scholar metrics, we can see that public access to Chinese academics’ publications is the lowest (51%) from 2019 to 2021. It seems that Chinese academics’ research is not as widely disseminated as that of scholars from other countries. This is mainly because Chinese EFL academics have been reported to have fewer records in research compared to teachers of other disciplines in the social sciences (Borg 2009 ; Peng and Gao 2019 ). The existing literature has revealed various factors influencing teachers’ research productivity from individual and institutional perspectives (Heng Hamid and Khan 2020 ). These factors include research competency (Prado 2019 ), research self-efficacy (Randazzo et al. 2021 ), research motivation (Borg 2015 ; Borg and Liu 2013 ; Stupnisky et al. 2022 ), socialisation of teachers (Hedjazi and Behravan 2011 ; Nguyen 2022 ), demographics (age, gender, qualification, rank), and teachers’ working experiences (Farooqi et al. 2019 ; Hedjazi and Behravan 2011 ); institutional factors involving working environments (Li and Zhang, 2022 ); time allocation (Barber et al. 2021 ); extra administrative duties and institutional support (Randazzo et al. 2021 ; Sakarkaya 2022 ; Uwizeye et al. 2022 ); financial support (Randazzo et al. 2021 ); institutional culture and inadequate mentoring (Okon et al. 2022 ); research skills training (Kyaw 2021 ) and collaboration among teachers (Owan et al. 2023 ). Although many scholars studied individual-level research productivity and factors that contributed to its increase (Duc et al. 2020 ; Gironzetti and Muṅoz-Basols 2022 ; Nygaard 2017 ), few have been reported that are relevant to an EFL context in developing countries (Noorollahi 2021 ; Owan et al. 2023 ).

As it is known, China is a developing country with many changes in its educational sector. There are 3472 higher education institutions (HEIs), including 2688 regular HEIs and 784 non-government (private) HEIs (Ministry of Education [MoE], 2020). Traditionally, these HEIs are categorised into the following types: “Project 985” universities (39 universities), “Project 211” universities (116 universities), ordinary/regular universities and colleges. “Projects 985/211” universities are considered top-tier institutions in China, with “Project 985” universities being established as elite institutions derived from the “Project 211” universities. The government allocates varying financial budgets to different types of universities, with higher-level institutions receiving larger budgets (MoE 2007 ). The MoE proposed the “Double First-class” university initiative in 2017, with the objective of establishing first-class universities and disciplines of the world (MoE 2017). This initiative encompasses all universities under the “Projects 985/211” umbrella. Notably, it diverges from the “Projects 985/211” framework by employing a dynamic university list subject to reassessment every five years (MoE 2017). Universities failing to meet the specified criteria are subject to removal from the “Double First-class” designation. In our current study, conventional categorisation was employed to ensure the reliability and consistency of the results.

Among those factors, motivation has been reported to be one of the most influential factors for teachers’ research productivity (Borg 2015; Borg and Liu 2013 ), teachers with a stronger research motivation show better research performance (Duc et al. 2020 ; Nguyen et al. 2021 ). Nevertheless, most available studies merely focused on teachers’ general research behaviours, few of them specialising in their research motivation in China (Liu 2016 ; Zhou et al. 2022 ). Zhang ( 2014 ) proposed that the contextual factors need to be considered when studying human dynamics because they are not isolated but associated with the culture of their organisations. Employees accomplish their work within the created context of organisational culture (Nguyen et al. 2021 ). When individuals show motivation naturally, it indicates that the organisation has created a conducive work environment and ambiance to promote their motivation (Duc et al. 2020 ). However, the level of teachers’ research motivation is various with diverse factors affecting their research motivation. These include demographic factors, gender (Tran et al. 2021 ), age (Henry et al. 2020 ; Sadeghi and Abutorabi 2017 ), rank (Heng et al. 2020 ), qualification (Nguyen et al. 2021 ), years of employment (Horodnic and Zait 2015 ), intrinsic factors including research interests (Horodnic and Zait 2015 ), research capability and expectation (Nguyen et al. 2021 ), satisfaction and acquiring new knowledge (Zhou et al. 2022 ), enjoyment and collaboration (Yuan et al. 2016 ), sense of creativity-curiosity (Chen and Zhao, 2013 ) and extrinsic factors involving tenure (Miller et al. 2011 ), solving teaching problems (Yuan et al. 2016 ), promotion (Heng et al. 2020 ), organisational support (Nguyen et al. 2021 ), salary increase (Horodnic and Zait 2015 ), rewards and punishments (Zhou et al. 2022 ), teachers’ education or experience (Sun and Zhang 2022 ), administrative post (Tran et al. 2021 ), and job security (Tian and Lu 2017 ). Although diverse factors have been studied affecting teachers’ motivation for conducting research, institutional support can be prioritised (Randazzo et al. 2021 ). Sakarkaya ( 2022 ) found that institutional support is one of the most prevalent barriers to teachers’ research in Turkey, which is supported by Borg and Alshumaimeri’s ( 2012 ) and Kyaw’s ( 2021 ) studies. However, Randazzo et al. ( 2021 ) found teachers’ research motivation is positively related to institutional support in the United States. It corresponds to Randazzo et al.’s ( 2021 ) study that proper institutional support significantly drives teachers’ research. With inconsistent findings from different countries, further studies are needed to explore the impact of institutional support on teachers’ research motivation in different contexts. Additionally, as existing studies mostly showed pure quantitative or qualitative conclusions (Sadeghi and Abutorabi 2017 ; Yuan et al. 2016 ), there is a need for a mixed-methods study to explore both the general situation of institutional support for Chinese EFL teachers and how it affects their research motivation (Liu 2016 ). Accordingly, our study investigates the influence of institutional support on motivation among academics in China, a typical EFL context in which English is seldom used as a working language or informally for daily communication. It also aims to explore the significant measures to promote Chinese EFL teachers’ research motivation.

Literature review

Teachers’ research motivation.

Motivation refers to “the dynamically changing cumulative arousal in a person that initiates, directs, coordinates, amplifies, terminates, and evaluates the cognitive and motor processes whereby initial wishes and desires are selected, prioritised, operationalised, and (successfully or unsuccessfully) acted out” (Dörnyei and Ottó 1998 , p.65). In other words, it initiates people’s behaviour and directs, energises, sustains, and eventually terminates the action (Graham and Weiner 2012 ). Motivation research in general education and applied linguistics has a history of more than 60 years (Al-Hoorie 2017 ). However, the study on teachers’ motivation only has a relatively short history of over 20 years (Han and Yin 2016 ), and these primarily focus on aspects of motivation related to teaching (Liu 2016 ). Teachers’ research motivation was proposed for the first time just over a decade ago by Borg ( 2007 ). To date, few studies have examined teachers’ research motivation (Liu 2016 ). Existing studies pay more attention to how research motivation affects teachers’ research; however, the exploration of what factors affect teachers’ research motivation becomes an urgent task (Zhou et al. 2022 ).

In the current study, we follow scholars’ definition of motivation, which is traditionally divided into intrinsic motivation and extrinsic motivation (Dornyei and Ushioda 2011 ). Intrinsic motivation refers to the internal fascination and gratification of the activity itself as the main reasons to attract people to engage in an activity, while extrinsic motivation means incentives or external pressures that attract people to pursue an activity (Reeve 1995 ). Both intrinsic and extrinsic motivation are essential to teachers’ research engagement but have significant differences in different contexts (Borg 2007 , 2009 ; Borg and Alshumaimeri 2012 ; Borg and Liu 2013 ). For example, Borg ( 2007 ) found that intrinsic motivation was more significant than extrinsic motivation in Turkey. In contrast, in the replicative survey, extrinsic motivation occupied a greater position than intrinsic motivation in China (Borg and Liu 2013 ). However, the reasons why intrinsic or extrinsic motivation is more significant are not clear because of the lack of follow-up in-depth studies. According to Han and Yin ( 2016 ), teachers’ research motivation varies in different contexts, and the investigation into motivation in the Chinese context is a scarcity. Drawing on the previous literature, this study uses mixed methods and concentrates on the current states of Chinese EFL teachers’ research motivation and institutional factors that positively or negatively impact it.

Institutional support for research

Research support can be defined as any provided resource that can boost the ability of a faculty member’s engagement in scholarship (McGill and Settle 2012 ). The provided support for teachers’ research affects their research motivation. For example, the disconnect between the institutions’ rhetoric and their actual actions affected teachers’ engagement and motivation for research (Randazzo et al. 2021 ). In China, Luo and Hyland ( 2016 ) found that a lack of institutional support was one of the main reasons why university teachers’ manuscripts cannot be published and/or are cited less often, even if they are published. A proper organisational work environment of the department, such as effective policies, reasonable structure, and supportive resources for the job (including incentives, practical goals, skills, and staffing), is necessary for any significant research (Bland et al. 2005 ). Given these justifications, the current study investigates how institutional support in Chinese universities concerning time-related support, funding-related support, training-related support, and working environment support affect teachers’ research motivation and engagement.

Time-related and funding-related support

Time constraint has been regarded as one of the constraints of being research-engaged for teachers (Borg and Alshumaimeri 2012 ; Kyaw 2021 ), which is a common phenomenon in many contexts (Borg 2006 ). For example, although teachers in Chile were willing to access and utilise research, they collectively stated that they lacked time to search for materials, read articles, and attend conferences (Sato and Loewen 2019 ). In accordance with Davey’s ( 2013 ) findings, teachers complained that their formal working hours were occupied by attending school activities, which hindered teachers from indulging in research-related activities. In such a situation, teachers understandably struggled to devote their time to research. Because of that, some researchers emphasised the necessity of separating research from teaching hours in faculty time allocation (Creswell 1985 ). As Kyaw ( 2021 ) found, the research activities were impeded by unbalanced workloads rather than heavy teaching loads in Myanmar. As a consequence, it was imperative that universities arrange schedules that allowed teachers to have sufficient time to gather resources and conduct research (Graves et al. 1982 ).

In addition, the allocation of funding for research was output-driven (Nundulall and Dorasamy, 2010 ). According to Sadeghi and Abutorabi ( 2017 ), in Iran, lack of funds was the second main reason teachers scarcely conducted research. McGill and Settle ( 2012 ) discovered that American and Canadian teachers who received more institutional funding were more likely to engage in research. At the same time, Randazzo et al. ( 2021 ) found that the research endeavours of American researchers were limited because not many people were keen to submit grant applications. The shortage of financial support led to a lack of opportunities to attend conferences and/or seminars at home and abroad (Kızıltepe 2008 ), resulting in weaker research motivation. Therefore, Wang et al. ( 2020 ) appealed for more research funding to be distributed to EFL teachers to encourage them to do research. However, different countries have different ways of allocating funds. To benefit Chinese EFL teachers’ funding distribution, the exploration of the current status of Chinese EFL teachers’ funding allocation is needed to boost their research motivation.

Training-related and working environment support

Mentoring is a form of institutional support in which a more experienced member provides information, support, and guidance to a less experienced, usually new member of an institution to enhance the latter’s chances of success within or beyond the institution (Campbell and Campbell 1997 ). Mentors are expected to serve as role models (Wanberg et al. 2007 ), who would transfer skills and support continuous learning, especially when skills are scarce (Nundulall and Dorasamy 2010 ). With mentors’ support, inexperienced researchers build confidence in their research (Griffiths et al. 2010 ). As Eby and Robertson ( 2020 ) proposed, mentoring positively affects the mentee, the mentor, and the organisation. As a capacity-building initiative, mentorship programmes can increase research outputs (Nundulall and Reddy 2011 ). Specifically, a practitioner-oriented research support programme was highly effective in promoting teacher research (Al-Maamari et al. 2017 ). Teachers who never received initial and continued support from the mentor hardly engage in or sustain research activities (Borg 2006 ). Nevertheless, mentoring has been perceived as a grey area in universities, theoretically established but executed ineffectively due to a lack of knowledge and interest, negative perceptions of mentorship, and the absence of university networks and role models (Owan et al. 2023 ). According to the available literature, the extent of its promotion and application in China is still unclear. Further research is needed to explore the effectiveness of mentoring among Chinese EFL teachers. Additionally, factors such as enhanced faculty research networks and collaborations are crucial for teachers because research collaboration is a growing trend among scholars (Paul and Mukhopadhyay 2022 ). In their systematic review, Uwizeye et al. ( 2022 ) found that teachers in African HE institutions had limited participation in research collaboration, which hindered their research motivation and research productivity. It appears that research collaboration significantly enhances scholars’ and institutions’ publications and rankings (Paul and Mukhopadhyay 2022 ). Therefore, research collaboration among faculty within and across institutions is highly expected to promote teachers’ research motivation and productivity (Yuan et al. 2016 ). However, effective collaborative methods between/among teachers still need to be further explored.

In addition, general guidance and skill development training from the relevant technical expertise also enhance university teachers’ research involvement (Wilkins 2011 ). It is necessary for teachers to possess related research knowledge and skills that help them to conduct enquiries soundly and share the findings effectively (Borg 2006 ). Among the available studies, researchers seldom noticed the enhancement of the actual research competence and skills from the training programmes (Gelso and Lent 2000 ). Insufficient research skills, such as language skills, information and communications technology skills, deter Burmese teachers’ research engagement (Kyaw 2021 ). In their study, Kozhakhmet et al. ( 2020 ) proposed that extra training and re-learning of research skills were needed for scholars in non-Anglophone and developing countries to fully become a member of the global scientific community. However, Loewen ( 2019 ) reported that language teachers were neither paid nor trained to conduct research, as was the case with teachers in Iran (Sadeghi and Abutorabi 2017 ). It is necessary for HE institutions that emphasise research to cultivate expert and knowledgeable faculty members by organising in-service training (Shariatmadari and Mahdi 2012 ). However, it is unclear whether Chinese EFL teachers receive sufficient research training as teachers and researchers.

Finally, teachers’ working environment is vital for their research involvement. In the current study, “research environment” refers to the behaviours that include, at a minimum, shared values, assumptions, beliefs, rituals and the valued, worthwhile and pre-eminent activity with a central focus on the acceptance and recognition of research practices and outcomes (Evans 2008 ). It was found that faculty members’ work environments drove their productivity and prominence (Heng et al. 2023 ; Way et al. 2019 ). Limited workspace, including sharing offices with other colleagues, affected Turkish teachers’ research negatively (Kızıltepe 2008 ). Sadeghi and Abutorabi ( 2017 ) claimed teachers in Iran are suffering from a shortage of access to essential books and journals for conducting research. Borg ( 2009 ) found that the lack of knowledge and access to research sources was the reason why teachers do not engage in and with research. The more and better resources were provided for teachers, the higher the level of research productivity was achieved (Dundar and Lewis 1998 ). Therefore, it is necessary for HE institutions to provide a conducive research environment for academics to stimulate their engagement with research (Tadesse and Khalid 2022 ). Thus, the Chinese EFL teachers’ working environment should be studied to help institutions to provide conducive environments for motivating teachers in research. Overall, it is necessary to study the current situation of Chinese institutional support and how it motivates or de-motivates teachers’ research.

Given the above justifications, there were two research questions for the current study:

What is the relationship between the institutional support and Chinese university EFL teachers’ research motivation?

What is the influential institutional support for motivating Chinese university EFL teachers to do research?

Methodology

An explanatory mixed methods design was adopted to maximise the benefits of utilising quantitative analyses of large samples to provide broad trends in the population, and delving deep into the experiences of a selected group of teachers to qualitatively understand the issues they face (Bryman 2006 ). Using a mixed-methods approach made it possible for researchers to explore the relationship among the selected variables in-depth (Frankel et al. 2019 ).

Data collection methods

Anonymous user-friendly online questionnaires (Bowen et al. 2017 ) for EFL teachers were the data collection instruments in the quantitative phase. These questionnaires were administered online, including on social media platforms (e.g., WeChat, a popular social media platform in China). The Questionnaire on Teacher Research Motivation (QTRM) and the Questionnaire on Institutional Support for Teacher Research (QISTR) were developed by drawing on Amabile et al.’s (1994) Work Preference Inventory Scale (WPI) and Angaiz’s ( 2015 ) Institutional Support Scale. QTRM examined EFL teachers’ research motivation involving both intrinsic factors (interest in research, responsibility for conducting research, mastery of research skills, sense of achievement, and flexibility of research) and extrinsic factors (respect from others (e.g., colleagues, students) and research compensation (e.g., promotion, salary raise) with 19 items. QISTR measures mentorship support and the teachers’ working environment with 10 items. The validity and reliability of the questionnaires were examined through Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA).

The qualitative approach to data collection involved two methods: semi-structured interviews and teacher diaries. Semi-structured interviews entail a formal questionnaire in verbal form, consisting of questions designed to elicit concrete answers from respondents to gain their ideas, opinions, and experiences in-depth (Fraenkel et al. 2012 ). This method enables researchers to explore the participants’ biographies and what they value, through which participants’ attitudes, opinions, and beliefs can be probed (Cohen et al. 2011 ). In this study, teachers were interviewed individually to encourage them to give deeper and more personal expressions to their thoughts and opinions (Sparkes and Smith 2014 ). Additionally, personal diary writing was a key data source for the qualitative data as a valuable supplementary method in a mixed-method study (Bartlett and Milligan 2015 ). By using teacher diaries, we were able to obtain rich data about teaching events, motivations, and emotions of the participants as they regularly recorded their experiences in an unhampered way and over a period of time (Bartlett and Milligan 2015 ). For teachers, a record of their research enables them to shape their thinking, explore ideas and “make an important discovery” (Borg 2002 , p.163). This research was conducted following the guiding ethical principles of the authors’ university.

Procedures and participants

The survey was conducted first. The snowball method to recruit the participants was employed at this stage. The authors initially contacted one volunteer through their social networks. The invitation to join the study was sent to the first participant by email. After completing the questionnaire, the first participant recommended the next participant who met the criteria. In this manner, finally, 536 teachers completed the questionnaires. The questionnaire was distributed at the beginning of the first semester of the 2020–2021 academic year and it was open for four weeks. The first 12 teachers who agreed to participate in the interviews were chosen as the interviewees, and each participant was interviewed once, and each interview lasted for approximately 60 min, at a time and venue convenient for them. Two teachers were willing to record their research experiences in diaries for the past three months voluntarily.

The demographic information of the 536 teachers who took part in the quantitative phase is displayed in Table 1 . Almost half of these teachers (49.2%) were from ordinary/regular universities. The number of teachers from “Project 985” and “Project 211” universities was close to each other, and the proportion was nearly one-fifth of teachers separately. College teachers had the lowest proportion (8.9%) of the teachers. As expected, female teachers nearly tripled male teachers, with 380 female and 128 male participants. Almost 40% (199 teachers) teachers were from the age range of 41–50, which was close to the percentage of teachers from the 31- to 40-year-old age group. There were 67 (13.2%) teachers under 30 years old, who participated in this study. A total of 45 teachers (8.9%) who were over 51 answered the questionnaire. Lecturers (226, 44.5%) and associate professors (195, 38.4%) accounted for over four fifths (82.9%), with only 59 (11.6%) assistant lecturers and 28 (5.5%) full professors in this study. Over half of the participants (309, 60.8%) were from the College English department (teachers who teach non-English majors) and the rest (199, 39.2%) were from the English department (teachers who teach English majors).

Table 2 shows the demographic information of the participants in the qualitative phase. T represents the teachers who attended interviews, and D is identified as a diary writer. The number after T and D represents the sequence of their attendance in the current study. Seven teachers were from ordinary/regular universities. A quarter of the teachers came from “Projects 985/211” universities, and one of them agreed to write a diary. Nine teachers were from ordinary/regular colleges and one of them recorded her research monthly.

Data analysis

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) and Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) were used in analysing quantitative data. AMOS was used to analyse the quantitative data at this phase. CFA was utilised to specify the relationships of the observed variables to the latent variables within the measurement model. The purpose of the measurement test was to evaluate whether the observed variables accurately reflect the desired factors and to determine to what extent the measurement model fitted the empirical data. Each measurement construct was examined separately with the sample of 508 Chinese EFL teachers who participated in the online survey. The model fit evaluation was conducted in line with multiple model fit indices. The final well-fitting models for the measurement constructs were specified by the model fit and chosen as the final model. The results of evaluating the model can be found in Li and Zhang ( 2022 ).

SEM, a multivariate statistical framework to model complex relationships between directly and indirectly observed variables (Stein et al. 2012 ), describes the relationship among various measurement model components. It can also address research questions associated with complex casual relationships among latent constructs (Nusair and Hua 2010 ). SEM was selected as the most appropriate analytical approach for establishing the relationship between independent and dependent variables in this study, primarily due to the following reasons: (i) the presence of multiple observed variables, as SEM is adept at examining and modelling relationships among numerous variables; (ii) consideration of measurement error, as SEM incorporates the assessment of measurement error, thereby acknowledging the validity and reliability of observed scores; and (iii) the analysis of multiple-level data, as SEM enables the examination of sophisticated theoretical models pertaining to intricate phenomena (Schumacker and Lomax 2016 ). The current investigation encompassed a total of 29 items, aligning with the first criterion of involving multiple observed variables.

Thematic analysis was employed for analysing and interpreting the qualitative data, with reference to the six phases of thematic analysis suggested by Braun and Clarke ( 2006 ). These phases were as follows: familiarisation with the data, generating codes, searching for themes, reviewing themes, defining and naming themes, and producing the report. Initially, the transcriptions were coded on the basis of the conceptual framework and research questions of this phase using the qualitative data software NVivo 12. The first author, who conducted the research, identified segments of the data and added a code to label the identified segments. The segments referred to a data extract with a unit of meaning related to the phenomenon under investigation, and a code meant a label that described the characters and meanings of the attached segment precisely (Braun and Clarke 2006 ). After coding the whole data, the researcher compared and contrasted those codes, and the similar and related codes were merged to form themes. Therefore, the redundant codes were reduced in quantity, and the themes were developed. The researcher repeatedly inspected the existing codes and original data to ensure there were no new codes. When all the themes were confirmed, the researcher reviewed the “determined” themes to guarantee their accuracy. The judgment of the themes was based on Patton’s (1990) criteria: internal homogeneity (codes within a theme should cohere meaningfully together) and external heterogeneity (different themes should be clearly and identifiably distinguished).

To ensure the trustworthiness of the findings, several steps were taken. The primary analysis was conducted by the first author and then shared and agreed upon with the other authors. Additionally, a portion of the data was coded by another independent researcher except for the authors, and an 85% rater agreement was achieved.

Predictive effects of institutional support on teachers’ research motivation

To examine the effect of institutional support on teachers’ research motivation, we built a SEM. The measurement model of institutional support was used as the predictor to test its effect on teachers’ research motivation. Table 3 presents the results of the model index of SEM on research motivation, which were all in the acceptable range ( χ2  = 1188.924; χ2/ df  = 3.240; CFI = 0.93; RMSEA = 0.066; SRMR = 0.0666; gamma hat = 0.90, TLI = 0.93). Figure 1 shows a simplified graphic representation of the SEM model with only significant paths.

Mentorship = Mentorship Support; Working Environment = Working Environment of Teachers; Interest = Research Interest; Responsibility = Teacher Responsibility of Being Research-engaged; Achievement = Sense of Achievement; Flexibility = Flexibility of Doing Research; Respect = Respect from Others; Compensation = Compensation from Research.

The two-factor model showed that the working environment ( β  = 0.344, p  < 0.05) significantly influenced teachers’ research motivation. It suggests that if the working environment improves, teachers’ research motivation increases. The research motivation was explained 18.1% ( R²  = 0.181, f²  = 0.22, p  < 0.001) in total by this model. Table 4 reports the regression weights.

Factors affecting teachers’ research motivation

Our qualitative analysis revealed both positive and negative findings relating to teachers’ research motivation. Teachers from “Projects 985/211” universities claimed that they had sufficient online databases support and support of building research teams as motivators to enhance their research motivation. While teachers from ordinary/regular universities reported that they were short of guidance for research, had poor working conditions, lacked time support, and experienced deficiency in academic conference funding, which waned their research motivation. We present further details on each of these themes.

Working environments of teachers

Universities are supposed to provide various support for motivating teachers to do research. Different universities set up various tasks for EFL teachers to accomplish based on their occupied resources. Top universities, such as “Projects 985/211” universities with better platforms, had higher research requirements than those ordinary/regular universities. T1, who was from a top “Project 985” university in the northeast part of China reported that her university would support them to publish in top journals, such as those covered indexes including the SSCI (Social Sciences Citation Index) and/or the CSSCI (Chinese Social Sciences Citation Index). She said that her university would invite experts from different fields to hold workshops and share their research experience with teachers. In addition, the online databases in support of T1’s university were sufficient. The library of her university provided literature-search services and supplemented to the databases when teachers required new online resources. The support of constructing research teams was also provided when it was needed. To organise a research team, the team leader was selected first, and the other members were recruited based on their research interests. Therefore, the collaboration among teachers was strengthened. While T6 from a “Project 211” university indicated that their university would give them more time but less funding support to accomplish the task of publishing a paper as compared with top “Project 985” university teachers. The research assessment of them was not as strict as with teachers in top “Project 985” universities. While their research support was sufficient for their current research requirement, the online databases were also sufficient for them to read. Teachers could choose to do more research or teaching based on their strengths. It means that teachers have the flexibility of choosing to be a researcher or a teacher.

However, as mentioned above, there are a number of different findings between teachers from “Projects 985/211” universities and ordinary/regular universities. In the ensuing section, findings from ordinary/regular university teachers are reported and as will be evident soon, these findings often show the negative side about research support.

Shortage of mentorship for teachers

The lack of mentors was an obstacle for teachers to get involved in research. Teachers usually did research alone. As T10 presented, she did not know how and who she could turn to for help when she encountered problems while doing research. She had to struggle with these problems herself, which would decline her positivity in doing research.

“How I wished that someone could help me with my research instead of working alone. However, even now, with high research pressure for teachers, there was no mentor for us. I suffered enough from doing research and wanted to stop now.” (Excerpt from the interview of T10)

Teachers urgently needed to engage in more research with the research pressure of “publish or perish.” To help them achieve the research engaged goal, the arrangement of mentors was pressing for universities. The research team was supposed to be a kind of impetus for teachers to engage in research. Different universities provided diverse support for organising a research team. Some universities explicitly encouraged teachers to set up research teams to establish better cooperation without a need for help. As displayed in T12’s interview, teachers had to explore the process of building up the research team themselves.

“Doing research alone was a little bit lonely. With the encouragement of the university, I applied for a research team at our university. What I did was to organize those teachers who had the same hobbies (planting) as me together. The university did nothing during this process.” (Excerpt from the interview of T12)

Other universities had no clear policy and support for establishing a research team, and teachers tried to organise a research group through their social networks. T3 reported the university hardly issued any policies to encourage them to discuss research. Teachers could only ask other teachers for help proactively.

“Because my rank was associate professor, I could apply projects as an organizer. Teachers who were willing to join me would be invited to join my team. The department provided no support for building a research team, and I used my social network merely to find research cooperators.” (Excerpt from the interview of T11)

It can be seen from the interviews of T11 and T3 that teachers were eager to have research teams that would benefit their research. The help from other teachers in the research team was valuable, especially for novice teachers. For teachers, the provided office from the university guaranteed their work efficiency. They could concentrate on their work in a proper space they could call their own. However, not all of the teachers were provided with the office, as reflected in T5’s interview:

“Our university provided no office for teachers. I had to go back home after teaching every time. It was hard for me to engage in research at home because I had no energy to do research after teaching and the long trip home. We did not have a place to prepare for our teaching, let alone do research. Our department was ignored by our university because we a liberal arts major in a polytechnic university.” (Excerpt from the interview of T5)

As one of the basic conditions of guaranteeing teachers’ research work, the provided offices for teachers needed to be awesome auxiliary support. It was found that teachers’ research motivation was influenced by database support. Some universities never provided database support for teachers. For example, T5 said that her university scarcely provided any databases for teachers, even the CNKI (China National Knowledge Infrastructure). She could not read the latest literature except by borrowing her friends’ accounts from other universities to download. It was very inconvenient. Therefore, she seldom did research.

Other universities supplied certain databases which were insufficient for teachers. The lack of sufficient online database support has been a common obstacle for teachers to engage in research. We can see from T4’s interviews that it was so hard for them to read the latest research in their areas of interest. If they wanted to read the latest literature, they needed to download it themselves and pay for it. It might be a financial burden to some teachers due to their low salaries, and they were unwilling to do it in this way.

“The basic Chinese databases were supplemented, such as CNKI and some other top Chinese journals. However, it was tough to search for the English databases. When I needed some foreign materials, I had to pay for them myself.” (Excerpt from the interview of T4)

Lack of time support for teachers’ research engagement

Five interviewees reported the heavy workload hindered their research engagement. According to these teachers, the teaching load was too heavy for them to do research. Teachers could only do research during vacations or weekends. For example, T12 said the daily reading habit was cultivated unsuccessfully because of the workload during each semester. A vacation was the time when she would read and write because she did not need to teach and attend various activities at the university.

Similarly, T7 reported that she had over 20 classes a week. There was no energy in her to discuss research after teaching. Besides, she needed to organise and take students to various competitions. Most of her work time was occupied by diverse workloads making her have no time to consider research. She said it was common for Chinese university teachers to struggle to be teachers and researchers at the same time.

Administrative meetings would influence teachers’ research engagement in different aspects, as shown in T7’s interview. On the one hand, the meeting was time-consuming for teachers. Their task was to sit quietly and listen to leaders’ speeches or briefings. If they were absent from the meeting, their salary would be deducted. It took up a lot of time; therefore, teachers had to allocate less time to research. On the other hand, these meetings seldom provided teachers with substantial, meaningful content for study. Teachers could not learn anything that benefited their research. Administrative meetings were necessary because of the need to manage a university. However, too many meetings became a burden for teachers, resulting in their research time deduction.

Deficiency in academic conference funding or opportunities

Generally, academic conferences made teachers engage in research more. However, it was found that T4’s university held few conferences, and she had fewer opportunities to communicate with other scholars and/or share her research with others. Although communication with other scholars would help teachers involve in research more often, the support for teachers to attend academic conferences was not enough. Teachers had few opportunities to attend conferences with little support from their university. Compared with other teachers who had enough support for participating in academic conferences, it was a disadvantage for those teachers with less support to be research-engaged.

The quantitative and qualitative analysis of the influence of institutional support on their research motivation, as described in the preceding section, indicated opposite findings. An explanation for this discrepancy may be that participants responded to the questionnaires within a short time, which might have led to an inaccurate recall of their experiences. Brewer et al. ( 2004 ) claimed that participants may provide purposefully, or accidentally, imprecise recall and responses because of a lack of time to fully recall information. This section discusses the explanation of the consistency and inconsistency of the findings in relation to the literature.

Both the quantitative and qualitative results showed that working environments provided for teachers significantly affect teachers’ research motivation. According to Way et al. ( 2019 ), the drive for early-career faculty members to be research-engaged was where they worked rather than where they were trained. This emphasises the importance of teachers’ working environment as a facilitator for motivating them to be research-engaged, which aligns with Heng et al.’s ( 2023 ) findings. Nguyen et al. ( 2021 ) found that lecturers’ research motivation in Vietnam was positively affected by organisational support directly and indirectly. If teachers can access whatever they want for their studies, they then might be motivated to do research because they do not have to worry about lacking anything, such as materials and basic equipment. In the present study, the teachers from “Projects 985/211” universities claimed that an appropriate working environment guaranteed the auxiliary support for research, making them more willing to be research-engaged. Teachers from “Projects 985/211” universities seemed to have a supportive working environment with high research motivation, except for T5, who was from a polytechnic “Project 211” university. The unequal resource distribution within her university demotivated her from conducting research. Besides, the government unequally distributed its financial budget based on the university types in China, reflecting the reality that liberal arts majors are not valued in polytechnic universities and are even ignored. One possible explanation is that these universities are pressurised by the government to innovate and have research productivity in their strong disciplines (e.g., science, engineering, architecture). Therefore, more resources, such as independent offices, funding, online databases, among other things, are distributed to the science and engineering majors. Without sufficient institutional support, teachers of the liberal arts majors may gradually lose passion for conducting research due to a lack of funding, time, and latest databases support etc.

One unanticipated qualitative finding was that most teachers from ordinary/regular universities and colleges reported insufficient institutional support in their institutions. Teachers’ research motivation varied based on the university type, which is a new finding compared to previous related studies (e.g., Kızıltepe, 2008 ; Way et al. 2019 ). This inconsistency may be due to the unequal distribution of resources from the central government, including funding, research training, etc., in Chinese universities. The allocation of the financial budget of the government depends on the university type. The “Projects 985/211” universities usually received more funding support than those ordinary/regular universities and colleges. As McGill and Settle ( 2012 ) found, increased research funding could promote teachers’ research motivation. Funding support is a common method to stimulate teachers to be research-engaged in universities (e.g., Faribi, 2019 ). Therefore, EFL teachers who work in “Projects 985/211” universities may show higher research motivation than others. However, the number of EFL teachers who work in “Projects 985/211” universities is quite limited, and most Chinese EFL teachers are from ordinary/regular universities. The relatively low research motivation among ordinary/regular university/college teachers could result in their lower research productivity. This might be the main reason for the fewer research records of Chinese EFL teachers.

On the other hand, without ample financial support, ordinary/regular universities might have fewer opportunities to either host or attend academic conferences. Thus, teachers have limited opportunities to stay updated with the latest development of their field, which may decrease their research motivation and research productivity. Another possible explanation for this is that research training is deficient for EFL teachers in ordinary/regular universities/colleges with inadequate financial support. Although there are many free online research training classes, they might not be sufficient or necessary for those teachers to conduct research. The needed research training might require substantial financial investment. It is also possible that the research training programmes may not be helpful for teachers’ development of research skills, and, in certain universities, there may be a lack of research training altogether. To some extent, teachers have to learn to conduct research themselves, which is challenging because it is hard to find systemic knowledge about research in their field (Yuan et al. 2016 ). The acquired resources might be unsystematic, and teachers may lack the patience to seek the resources they need for their studies. The complex learning process means teachers had no robust drive to engage in and with research. Therefore, teachers’ research motivation is negatively affected due to the lack of necessary research training. According to the qualitative data from ordinary/regular university/college EFL teachers, their universities/colleges seldom provided teachers with time support. Teachers in ordinary/regular universities/colleges have multiple roles: teachers, researchers and administrators. Many of them have a heavy teaching load and administrative responsibilities, which leaves little time for them to do research. With limited time, teachers’ motivation to conduct research gradually declines.

The quantitative data analysis corroborated findings that mentorship had no impact on teachers’ research motivation. It could be deduced that most universities/colleges in China might not offer adequate mentorship support for teachers’ research engagement. The follow-up qualitative findings also revealed that teachers were not allocated enough mentors in their universities, which demotivated teachers to do research when initial and continuing support was removed from mentors (Borg 2006 ). This corroborated Owan et al.’s ( 2023 ) study, which suggested that mentorship is a grey area in universities. The probable explanation is that the research policies about mentorship in Chinese universities were not practical. Mentorship programmes may have been unreasonably designed and implemented to support teachers’ research. Current university research policies mostly focused on assessing the research outputs, with few clear rules for allocating mentors to teachers and helping them transition smoothly to becoming researchers, and it is especially true for novice teachers. In such a situation, teachers had to rely on their own networks to seek guidance and collaboration, which gradually led to a reluctance to engage in research due to limited networks. Although some universities provided mentorship for teachers, the mentorship offered to these teachers was a general guidance rather than customised guidance when teachers encountered difficulties during their research. Such practices highly likely would negatively affect research motivation (Owan et al. 2023 ). It is clear that there is a need for teachers to have pertinent research mentors. Despite mentor allocation being achieved in a few universities, there was a lack of regulatory systems for the mentoring process between experienced mentors and novice teachers (Nundulall and Dorasamy 2010 ). The validity of mentorship was difficult to measure and test. Furthermore, teachers did not know how to connect the mentors’ experiences to their own research. The shared experiences of those mentors might not be suitable for the practices of the teacher under instruction, which would lead to a gradual decline in teachers’ research motivation due to failures in their own research experiences.

Conclusions, implications and limitations

This study was designed to investigate the influence of mentorship and working environments on EFL teachers’ research motivation in Chinese universities. The first research question is about the relationship between institutional support and Chinese university EFL teachers’ research motivation. The results reflected the positive influence of the working environment on teachers’ research motivation, especially in “Projects 985/211” universities, and mentorship has no influence on their research motivation. The second research question is about how institutional support affects teachers’ research motivation. We found that the working environment of “Projects 985/211” universities is far better than ordinary/regular universities and colleges with timely academic workshops, sufficient online databases, supportive research communities, etc. The third research question explores the influence of institutional support on motivating Chinese university EFL teachers to do research. In the current study, the working environment is more influential than mentorship in motivating teachers to do research.

Theoretically, we explored the influence of institutional support on teachers’ research motivation in the Chinese context. We investigated the mentorship and working environments in different types of higher education institutions, providing researchers and teachers with a new perspective to understand teachers’ research motivation more directly at granular levels. Methodologically, we employed a mixed-methods approach to examine the influence of mentorship and working environments on Chinese university EFL teachers’ research motivation. This approach offered a new perspective on understanding the extent to which institutional factors would affect teachers’ research motivation. It also shed light on Chinese EFL teachers’ professional development related to research.

Practically, administrators of these universities can establish research guidelines based on the current research findings. On the one hand, administrators are expected to fulfil the necessary needs of faculty members for their research. More research support, such as funding, time, and technical guidance for teachers to do research projects, could be provided (e.g., Faribi 2019 ). On the other hand, the performance appraisal could be adjusted to examine not only the final number of the research productivity annually but also the time that teachers spend being research-engaged. Universities could develop time-counting systems to record teachers’ research time. Teachers could also self-report their concrete time of reading the literature, analysing data, writing papers or project applications etc. through Excel, Word files, etc. Then these universities could give teachers rewards based on their research time. Thus, teachers’ research motivation could be boosted, especially those teachers who are motivated by external rewards. Additionally, administrators could formulate the achievement assessment system based on their university type and faculty members’ diversity of personality. Some teachers might be motivated by the incentives, and others probably care more about the promotion. Hence, the administrators could develop different forms of assessment for teachers of different characteristics. Besides, as the front-line teachers expect more opportunities to communicate with experienced scholars, the administrators could provide more opportunities for teachers to attend international and domestic conferences, research training programmes, and their targeted seminars. With these opportunities, teachers could accumulate more knowledge about research and may solve many research problems in their studies. In this way, their confidence in conducting research may be enhanced, which will strengthen their research motivation. Finally, as Sadeghi and Abutorabi ( 2017 ) proposed, raising teachers’ awareness of the benefits of research was the first step in motivating teachers to be research-active. This could be achieved through institutional management and constructing a rich research culture inside the education system. The supplement of substantial resources by the institutions might encourage teachers to research actively by guaranteeing their basic research needs.

From a national policy-making perspective, the distribution of research resources is unbalanced, including the allocation of the research funding. Policymakers could seek ways to balance the resource distribution among various types of universities. Even though the government may not be able to supply enough resources to every university in China, the policy of encouraging cooperation between the “Projects 985/211” and ordinary/regular universities could be proposed to help those universities with poor research atmospheres promote teachers’ research endeavours. It might be useful, especially for teachers at ordinary/regular universities, to be given opportunities and resources to learn how to do research from “Projects 985/211” teachers. Mentorship programmes between different types of universities could be established. “Projects 985/211” universities could provide research training programmes for teachers from different ordinary/regular universities. These programmes could be non-profit training, funded by the government. After training, teachers might acquire the research skills they need and build their research networks. Thus, research collaboration among different teachers from different universities could be promoted. After teachers establish stable research networks, their research productivity could be increased continuously, and teachers’ research motivation could be promoted. As teachers establish stable research networks, their research productivity could continuously increase, thereby promoting their research motivation. To enhance teachers’ motivation, future research could explore the cooperation methods and practical research training modes between “Projects 985/211” and ordinary/regular universities. Other influential environmental factors on teachers’ research motivation, such as research culture and university research policy for different disciplines, could be investigated to enhance Chinese EFL teachers’ research motivation.

We acknowledge the limitations of the study. Using the snowball sampling method, we recruited enough participants for the current study. Although this method is not a random selection method and may involve unrepresentative participants (Heckathorn 1997 ), the authors utilised it because it was the most economical way of collecting sufficient data during the pandemic. The generalisability of the study was compromised by its reliance on referrals within participants’ personal networks. Snowball sampling, thus employed, may result in a sample that inadequately reflected the broader population, potentially limiting the study’s applicability to other populations. Future studies could adopt random sampling to collect data for its representativeness. Also, the current study collected data for one semester without observing these teachers’ daily research activities. Therefore, the dynamic change in teachers’ research motivation cannot be obtained. To compensate for this shortcoming, in future studies researchers could adopt the observation method to collect data to clarify any dynamic changes in teachers’ research motivation.

Data availability

Data in this study are not publicly available to protect participants’ privacy. Data can be made available upon written request to the corresponding author Yanping Li.

Al-Hoorie AH (2017) Sixty years of language motivation research: Looking back and forward. SAGE Open 7(1):1–11

Article   Google Scholar  

Al-Maamari F, Al-Aamri K, Khammash S, Al-Wahaibi M (2017) Promoting EFL teacher research engagement through a research support programme. RELC J. 48(3):389–404. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688216684282

Amabile TM, Hill KG, Hennessey BA, Tighe EM (1994) The Work Preference Inventory: Assessing intrinsic and extrinsic motivational orientations. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 66(5):950

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Anderson EM, Shannon AL (1988) Toward a conceptualization of mentoring. J. Teach. Educ. 39(1):38–42. https://doi.org/10.1177/002248718803900109

Angaiz D (2015) An investigation of determinants of teacher education faculty research productivity in public sector universities of Pakistan. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Dowling College

Barber BM, Jiang W, Morse A, Puri M, Tookes H, Werner IM (2021) What explains diferences in fnance research productivity during the pandemic? J. Financ. 76(4):1655–1697. https://doi.org/10.1111/jof.13028

Bartlett R, Milligan C (2015) What is diary method? Bloomsbury Academic. https://doi.org/10.5040/9781472572578

Bland CJ, Center BA, Finstad DA, Risbey KR, Staples JG (2005) A theoretical, practical, predictive model of faculty and department research productivity. Acad Med. 80(3):225–237. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001888-200503000-00006

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Borg S (2002) Research in the lives of TESOL professionals. TESOL Matters 13(1):1–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2006.03.012

Borg S (2006) Conditions for teacher research. Engl. Teach. Forum 44(4):22–27

Google Scholar  

Borg S (2007) Research engagement in English language teaching. Teach. Teach. Educ. 23(5):731–747

Borg S (2009) English language teachers’ conceptions of research. Appl. Linguist. 30(3):358–388. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amp007

Borg S (2010) Language teacher research engagement. In Language Teaching (Vol. 43, Issue 4). The University of Auckland Library. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444810000170

Borg S, Alshumaimeri Y (2012) University teacher educators’ research engagement: Perspectives from Saudi Arabia. Teach. Teach. Educ. 28(3):347–356. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2011.10.011

Borg S, Liu YD (2013) Chinese college English teachers’ research engagement. TESOL Q. 47(2):270–299. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.56

Borg S (2015). Professional development for English language teachers: Perspectives from higher education in Turkey. British Council

Bowen PW, Rose R, Pilkington A (2017) Mixed methods-theory and practice: Sequential, explanatory approach Int. J. Quan. Qual. Res. Methods 5(2):10–27

Braun V, Clarke V (2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual. Res. Psychol. 3(2):77–101

Brew A, Lucas L (2009). Introduction: Academic research and researchers. In A. Brew, & Lucas, L. (Eds.), Academic research and researchers (pp. 1-12). Society for Research into Higher Education; Open University Press

Brewer NT, William KH, Nancy F, Howard MK (2004) Why Do People Report Better Health by Phone Than by Mail? Med. Care 42(9):875–883

Bryman A (2006) Integrating quantitative and qualitative research: How is it done? Qual. Res. 6(1):97–113. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794106058877

Campbell TA, Campbell DE (1997) Faculty/student mentor program: Effects on academic performance and retention. Res. High. Educ. 38(6):727–742

Chen Y, Zhao Q (2013) Gender differences in business faculty’s research motivation. J. Educ. Bus. 88(6):314–324. https://doi.org/10.1080/08832323.2012.717121

Cohen L, Manion L, Morrison K (2011) Research methods in education, 7th ed. New York: Routledge

Creswell JW (1985) Faculty research performance: Lessons from the science and the social science. Washington: Association for the Study of Higher Education

Creswell JW, Creswell JD (2018) Research design: Qualitative, quantatitive, and mixed methods approaches, 5th ed. Thousand Oaks: SAGE

Davey R (2013) The professional identity of teacher educators: Career on the cusp? New York: Routledge

Dörnyei Z, Ottó I (1998) Motivation in action: A process model of L2 motivation. Working Pap. Appl. Linguist. 4:43–69

Dornyei Z, Ushioda E (2011) Teaching and researching motivation, 2nd ed. New York: Longman

Duc A, Pham NT, Bui HP, Vu DT, Nguyen TH (2020) Impact of motivational factors on the work results of lecturers at Vietnam National University, Hanoi. J. Asian Financ. Econ. Bus. 7(8):425–433. https://doi.org/10.13106/jafeb.2020.vol7.no8.425

Dundar H, Lewis DR (1998) Determinants of research productivity in higher education. Res. High. Educ. 39(6):607–631. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1018705823763

Eby LT, Robertson MM (2020) The psychology of workplace mentoring relationships. Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 7(1):75–100. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-012119-044924

Evans P (2008) Is an alternative globalization possible? Politics Soc. 36(2):271–305

Faribi D (2019) Iranian journal of educational sociology Iranian English language teachers’ conceptions. Iran. J. Educ. Sociol. 2(2):1–11

Farooqi SM, Shahzad S, Tahira SS (2019) Who are more successful researchers? An analysis of university teachers’ research productivity. Glob. Soc. Sci. Rev. 4(1):354–364. https://doi.org/10.31703/gssr.2019(IV-I).46

Fraenkel JR, Wallen NE, Hyun HH (2012) How to design and evaluate research in education. New York: McGraw Hill

Frankel JR, Wallen NE, Hyun HH. (2019) How to design and evaluate research in education (10th ed.). McGraw-Hill

Gelso CJ, Lent RW (2000) Scientific training and scholarly productivity: The person, the training environment, and their interaction. In: Brown SD, Lent RW (eds), Handbook of counseling psychology (pp. 109–139). John Wiley & Sons, Inc

Gironzetti E, Muñoz-Basols J (2022) Research engagement and research culture in Spanish Language Teaching (SLT): Empowering the profession. Applied Linguistics, 1–28

Graham S, Weiner B (2012) Motivation: Past, present, and future. In Harris KR, Urdan T (eds), APA educational psychology handbook. Washington: American Psychological Association, pp. 367–397

Graves P, Marchand J, Thompson R (1982) Economics departmental rankings: Research incentives, constraints, and efficiency. Am. Econ Rev. 72(5):1131–1141

Griffiths V, Thompson S, Hryniewicz L (2010) Developing a research profile: Mentoring and support for teacher educators. Professional Dev. Educ. 36(1–2):245–262. https://doi.org/10.1080/19415250903457166

Han J, Yin H (2016) Teacher motivation: Definition, research development and implications for teachers. Cogent Educ. 3(1):1–18

Heckathorn DD (1997) Respondent-driven sampling: A new approach to the study of hidden populations. Soc. Probl. 44(2):174–199

Hedjazi Y, Behravan J (2011) Study of factors influencing research productivity of agriculture faculty members in Iran. High. Educ. 62:635–647. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-011-9410-6

Heng K, Hamid MO, Khan A (2020) Factors influencing academics’ research engagement and productivity: A developing countries perspective. Issues Educ. Res. 30(3):965–987. http://www.iier.org.au/iier30/heng.pdf

Heng K, Hamid MO, Khan A (2023) Research engagement of academics in the Global South: The case of Cambodian academics. Globalisation Societies Educ. 21(3):322–337

Henry C, Md Ghani NA, Hamid UMA, Bakar AN (2020) Factors contributing towards research productivity in higher education. Int. J. Eval Res. Educ. 9(1):203–211. https://doi.org/10.11591/ijere.v9i1.20420

Horodnic IA, Zaiţ A (2015) Motivation and research productivity in a university system undergoing transition. Res. Eval 24(3):282–292

Kozhakhmet S, Moldashev K, Yenikeyeva A, Nurgabdeshov A (2020) How training and development practices contribute to research productivity: A moderated mediation model. Stud Higher Educ, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2020.1754782

Kyaw MT (2021) Factors influencing teacher educators’ research engagement in the reform process of teacher education institutions in Myanmar. SAGE Open 11(4):215824402110613. https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440211061349

Kızıltepe Z (2008) Motivation and demotivation of university teachers. Teach. Teach. 14(5–6):515–530

Li Y, Zhang LJ (2022) Influence of mentorship and the working environment on English as a foreign language teachers’ research productivity: The mediation role of research motivation and self-efficacy. Front. Psychol. 13:1–17

ADS   Google Scholar  

Liu H (2016) Teacher motivation. In: Xu H (eds), Major issues in foreign language teacher education. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, pp. 56–81

Loewen S (2019) The role of research in the second language classroom. Lang. Teach. Res. Q. 9(10):31–38. https://doi.org/10.32038/ltrq.2019.10.03

Lucas CJ, Murry JW (2016) New faculty: A practical guide for academic beginners (3rd ed.). Palgrave Macmillan New York

Luo N, Hyland K (2016) Chinese academics writing for publication: English teachers as text mediators. J. Second Lang. Writ. 33:43–55

McGill MM, Settle A (2012) Identifying effects of institutional resources and support on computing faculty research productivity, tenure, and promotion. Int. J. Doctoral Stud. 7:167–198

Miller AN, Taylor SG, Bedeian AG (2011) Publish or perish: Academic life as management faculty live it. Career Dev. Int. 16(5):422–445

Ministry of Education, China (2007) Management reform of foreign universities and its enlightenment, http://www.moe.gov.cn/srcsite/A14/A14_other/200703/t20070309_75776.html

Ministry of Education, China (2017) Implementation Measures for Comprehensively Promoting the Construction of World-class Universities and First-class Disciplines (Interim), http://www.moe.gov.cn/srcsite/A22/moe_843/201701/t20170125_295701.html

Ministry of Education, China (2020) Number of Higher Education Institutions, http://en.moe.gov.cn/documents/statistics/2019/national/202006/t20200611_464789.html

Morze NV, Buinytska OP, Smirnova VA (2022) Designing a rating system based on competencies for the analysis of the university teachers’ research activities. CEUR Workshop Proc. 3085:139–153

Nguyen PV (2022) Infuence of institutional characteristics on academic staff’s research productivity: The case of a Vietnamese research-oriented higher education institution. Vietnam J. Educ. 6(3):196–208. https://doi.org/10.52296/vje.2022.202

Nguyen TD, Bui THV, Nguyen TLT, Tran MD, Tran TKN (2021) Perception of organizational support to lecturers’ research motivation: The case of Vietnam. J. Asian Financ., Econ. Bus. 8(2):657–666. https://doi.org/10.13106/jafeb.2021.vol8.no2.0657

Noorollahi N (2021) On the relationship between Iranian English language teaching students-self-efficacy, self-esteem, and their academic achievement. Lang. Teach. Res. Q. 21:84–96. https://doi.org/10.32038/ltrq.2021.21.06

Nundulall R, Dorasamy N (2010) Mentorship and sustainable research output: A case study of the University of Johannesburg. Ind. High. Educ. 26(2):127–137

Nundulall R, Reddy K (2011) Mentorship as a strategy to improve research output at tertiary institutions: A case study of University of Johannesburg. SAJHE 25(6):1155–1177

Nusair K, Hua N (2010) Comparative assessment of structural equation modelling and multiple regression research methodologies: E-commerce context. Tour. Manag. 31(3):314–324. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2009.03.010

Nygaard PL (2017) Publishing and perishing: An academic literacies framework for investigating research productivity Stud. High. Educ. 42(3):519–532. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2015.1058351

Okon AE, Owan VJ, Owan MV (2022) Mentorship practices and research productivity among early-career educational psychologists in universities. Educ. Process Int. J. 11(1):105–126. https://doi.org/10.22521/edupij.2022.111.7

Owan VJ, Ameh E, Anam E (2023) Collaboration and institutional culture as mediators linking mentorship and institutional support to academics’ research productivity. Educ Res Policy Pract, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10671-023-09354-3

Paul P, Mukhopadhyay K (2022) Measuring research productivity of marketing scholars and marketing departments. Marketing Educ Rev, 1–11, https://doi.org/10.1080/10528008.2021.2024077

Peng JE, Gao X (2019) Understanding TEFL academics’ research motivation and its relations with research productivity. Sage Open 9(3):1–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244019866295

Prado NI (2019) Predictors of research productivity among administrators, faculty, and students. Liceo J. High. Educ. Res. 15(2):1–16. https://doi.org/10.7828/ljher.v15i2.1319

Punch KF (2005) Introduction to social research–quantitative & qualitative approaches. London: Sage

Randazzo M, Priefer R, Pasupathy R (2021) Research self-efficacy and productivity in communication sciences and disorders faculty. J. Commun. Disord. 92:1–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcomdis.2021.106107

Reeve JM (1995) Motivating others: Nurturing inner motivational resources. Needham Heights: Allyn & Bacon

Sadeghi K, Abutorabi P (2017) Iranian English language teachers’ views of research: Implications for policy and practice. Res. Post Compuls. Educ. 22(4):513–534. https://doi.org/10.1080/13596748.2017.1381295

Sakarkaya V (2022) What triggers teacher research engagement and sustainability in a higher education context in Turkey? Participatory Educ. Res. 9(2):325–342. https://doi.org/10.17275/per.22.43.9.2

Sato M, Loewen S (2019) Do teachers care about research? The research-pedagogy dialogue. ELT J. 73(1):1–10. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccy048

Schumacker RE, Lomax RG (2016) A beginner’s guide to structural equation modeling, 4th ed. New York: Routledge

Shariatmadari M, Mahdi S (2012) Barriers to research productivity in Islamic Azad University: Exploring faculty members perception. Indian J. Sci. Technol. 5(5):2765–2769. https://doi.org/10.17485/ijst/2012/v5i5.12

Sondari MC, Tjakraatmadja JH, Bangun YR (2016) What motivate faculty member to do research? A literature review. Soc. Sci 11(21):5265–5269. https://doi.org/10.3923/sscience.2016.5265.5269

Sparkes AC, Smith B (2014) Qualitative research methods in sport, exercise and health: From process to product. London: Routledge

Stein CM, Morris NJ, Nock NL (2012) Structural equation modeling. In R. C. Elston (Ed.). Statistical human genetics: Vol. 850. Methods and protocols (pp. 495–512). Springer

Stupnisky RH, Larivière V, Hall NC, Omojiba O (2022) Predicting research productivity in STEM faculty: The role of self-determined motivation. Res Higher Educ, 64, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-022-09718-3

Sun Q, Zhang LJ (2022) Understanding novice and experienced teachers’ cognitions and practices for sustainable teacher development: The case of form-focused instruction in English language teaching. Sustainability 14:1–17. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14084711

Tadesse EF, Khalid S (2022) Are teachers and HE are on the same page? Calling for a research–teaching nexus among Ethiopian and Pakistani academics. J Appl Res Higher Educ, https://doi.org/10.1108/JARHE-09-2021-0348

Tian M, Lu G (2017) What price the building of world-class universities? Academic pressure faced by young lecturers at a research-centered university in China. Teach. High. Educ. 22(8):957–974

Tran TKN, Do Nguyen T, Van Pham T, Nguyen TLH, Glang MD, Ha NT (2021) Impact of administrative post and gender on lecturers’ research motivation in Vietnam. J. Asian Financ., Econ. Bus. 8(3):705–715

Uwizeye D, Karimi F, Thiong’o C, Syonguvi J, Ochieng V, Kiroro F, Gateri A, Khisa AM, Wao H (2022) Factors associated with research productivity in higher education institutions in Africa: A systematic review. AAS Open Res. 4:26. https://doi.org/10.12688/aasopenres.13211.2

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Wanberg CR, Welsh ET, Kammeyer-Mueller K (2007) Protégé and mentor self-disclosure: Levels and outcomes within formal mentoring dyads in a corporate context. J. Vocational Behav. 70(2):398–412. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2007.01.002

Wang BR, Zhang YZ, Zhang L (2020) On the status quo of college English teachers’ scientific research and influencing factors. Test. Eval 3:102–109

Way SF, Morgan AC, Larremore DB, Clauset A (2019) Productivity, prominence, and the effects of academic environment. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. 116(22):10729–10733

Article   ADS   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Wilkins P (2011) Research engagement for school development. Institute of Education, University of London

Yu K, Stith AL, Liu L, Chen HZ (2012) Tertiary education at a glance: China. https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/auckland/detail.action?docID=3034689

Yuan R, Sun P, Teng L (2016) Understanding language teachers’ motivations towards research. TESOL Q. 50(1):220–234. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.279

Zhang LJ (2021) Curriculum innovation in language teacher education: Reflections on 31 years of the PGDELT program for teacher continuing professional development. Chin. J. Appl. Linguist. 44:435–450

Zhang X (2014) Factors that motivate academic staff to conduct research and influence research productivity in Chinese project 211 universities. PhD Thesis, University of Canberra

Zhou T, Law R, Lee PC (2022) “What motivates me?” Motivation to conduct research of academics in teaching-oriented universities in China. J. Hospitality Leis. Sport Tour. Educ. 31:1–16

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

College of Humanities, Sichuan Agricultural University, Sichuan, China

Faculty of Education and Social Work, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand

Lawrence Jun Zhang & Naashia Mohamed

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

Y. Li, L. J. Zhang and N. Mohamed conceived and designed the study. Y. Li, as the first author, collected and analysed the data and drafted the manuscript, and all the authors revised and approved the manuscript. Y. Li finalised it for submissions as the corresponding author.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yanping Li .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Ethical approval

This research was conducted following the guiding ethical principles of the University of Auckland Human Participants Ethics Committee (Protocol Number: UOA2792).

Informed consent

To seek the participants’ informed consent, the adequate information about the purpose of the research, methods of participant involvement, intended use of the results, rights as a participant, and any potential risks were provided to the participants. This ensured that they comprehended the information thoroughly and were willing to participating the current study.

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

Cite this article.

Li, Y., Zhang, L.J. & Mohamed, N. The influence of mentorship and working environments on foreign language teachers’ research motivation in China. Humanit Soc Sci Commun 11 , 942 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-03448-w

Download citation

Received : 27 June 2023

Accepted : 02 July 2024

Published : 20 July 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-03448-w

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

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Information

• Author Services

Initiatives

You are accessing a machine-readable page. In order to be human-readable, please install an RSS reader.

All articles published by MDPI are made immediately available worldwide under an open access license. No special permission is required to reuse all or part of the article published by MDPI, including figures and tables. For articles published under an open access Creative Common CC BY license, any part of the article may be reused without permission provided that the original article is clearly cited. For more information, please refer to https://www.mdpi.com/openaccess .

Feature papers represent the most advanced research with significant potential for high impact in the field. A Feature Paper should be a substantial original Article that involves several techniques or approaches, provides an outlook for future research directions and describes possible research applications.

Feature papers are submitted upon individual invitation or recommendation by the scientific editors and must receive positive feedback from the reviewers.

Editor’s Choice articles are based on recommendations by the scientific editors of MDPI journals from around the world. Editors select a small number of articles recently published in the journal that they believe will be particularly interesting to readers, or important in the respective research area. The aim is to provide a snapshot of some of the most exciting work published in the various research areas of the journal.

Original Submission Date Received: .

• Active Journals
• Find a Journal
• Proceedings Series
• For Authors
• For Reviewers
• For Editors
• For Librarians
• For Publishers
• For Societies
• For Conference Organizers
• Open Access Policy
• Institutional Open Access Program
• Special Issues Guidelines
• Editorial Process
• Research and Publication Ethics
• Article Processing Charges
• Testimonials
• Preprints.org
• SciProfiles
• Encyclopedia

Article Menu

• Subscribe SciFeed
• Recommended Articles
• Author Biographies
• Google Scholar
• on Google Scholar
• Table of Contents

Find support for a specific problem in the support section of our website.

Please let us know what you think of our products and services.

Visit our dedicated information section to learn more about MDPI.

JSmol Viewer

Modeling workplace well-being factors in infrastructure construction projects: pls-sem approach.

1. Introduction

2. literature review, 2.1. workplace well-being in construction projects, 2.2. modeling interrelationships between variables in construction projects, 2.3. well-being in malaysian construction industry, 2.4. knowledge gap and study positioning, 3. methodology, 3.1. survey development.

Share and Cite

Alhammadi, Y.; Radzi, A.R.; Alias, A.R.; Rahman, R.A. Modeling Workplace Well-Being Factors in Infrastructure Construction Projects: PLS-SEM Approach. Buildings 2024 , 14 , 2289. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings14082289

Alhammadi Y, Radzi AR, Alias AR, Rahman RA. Modeling Workplace Well-Being Factors in Infrastructure Construction Projects: PLS-SEM Approach. Buildings . 2024; 14(8):2289. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings14082289

Alhammadi, Yasir, Afiqah R. Radzi, Ahmad Rizal Alias, and Rahimi A. Rahman. 2024. "Modeling Workplace Well-Being Factors in Infrastructure Construction Projects: PLS-SEM Approach" Buildings 14, no. 8: 2289. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings14082289

Article Metrics

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

Subscribe to receive issue release notifications and newsletters from MDPI journals