A literature review is not just another chapter of our thesis, it is the backbone of any well-grounded research project. However, it is important to note that many types of literature review exist. Each type of review serves a different purpose. As such, choosing the right one can shape the depth, direction and credibility of your work. Below is a simple breakdown to help you understand what each type does and when it makes sense to use it.
𝟏. 𝐍𝐚𝐫𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐑𝐞𝐯𝐢𝐞𝐰
Narrative reviews offer broad overviews of a topic. This type of review aims to pull together what’s generally known about a topic without getting too hung up on methodological technicalities through which the knowledge was generated. This type of review is super helpful when you’re just trying to understand the landscape, build background knowledge, or unpack theories without diving into technical procedures. Very good for those who are new to research or those who are new to the specific topic in question. This is the kind of review approach you need to build your background of the study.
𝟐. 𝐇𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥 𝐑𝐞𝐯𝐢𝐞𝐰
A historical review examines how ideas, policies, theories or practices have evolved over time. It uses chronological tracing to show shifts in understanding, contextual influences, and major turning points. If you’re trying to understand the roots of an issue or how past thinking shaped where we are today, this style gives you that kind of linear narrative. Like a narrative, this type of review can also be useful for building the background information of your study.
𝟑. 𝐒𝐲𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐦𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐜 𝐑𝐞𝐯𝐢𝐞𝐰
Systematic reviews use transparent, replicable procedures to search, select, appraise and synthesize evidence. That is why they are called systematic. These reviews answer precise empirical questions and are common in fields such as medicine, psychology, education, and public policy. Their strength lies in minimizing bias through predetermined criteria and structured analysis. If your goal is to answer a specific empirical question with as little bias as possible, this is the way to go. You’ll see these a lot in health sciences, psychology, and policy work.
𝟒. 𝐒𝐜𝐨𝐩𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐑𝐞𝐯𝐢𝐞𝐰
A scoping review maps the breadth of existing literature. They are particularly useful in emerging, complex or fragmented fields. Rather than evaluating the quality of studies, it clarifies the research landscape. This is achieved by identifying themes, gaps and the extent of available evidence in the emerging field. It is ideal for broad exploratory work, feasibility assessments or refining research questions. They’re less about judging the quality of studies and more about understanding the landscape.
𝟓. 𝐂𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥 𝐑𝐞𝐯𝐢𝐞𝐰
Critical reviews go beyond summarizing literature. They evaluate the strengths, limitations, and assumptions within existing research. By interrogating methodologies, theories, and conclusions, they help scholars challenge conventional thinking, refine frameworks, or propose new conceptual directions. Their emphasis is on critique and argumentation. If you enjoy questioning established ideas and poking holes in theories, this one’s for you. Because of their level of criticism, critical reviews are the best approach for validating research gaps.
𝟔. 𝐌𝐞𝐭𝐚-𝐀𝐧𝐚𝐥𝐲𝐬𝐢𝐬
A meta-analysis combines findings from multiple quantitative studies to produce a pooled effect size. Think of it as a form of literature review that applies statistics to produce new knowledge. It is the most rigorous form of evidence synthesis when numerical data are available. This approach strengthens the reliability of conclusions and is especially useful when studies address the same intervention, relationship, or outcome.
𝟕. 𝐌𝐞𝐭𝐚-𝐒𝐲𝐧𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐬𝐢𝐬
Unlike meta-analysis, a meta-synthesis integrates qualitative research. It pulls together themes, concepts, and lived experiences to create deeper, more interpretive insights. It is commonly used in fields like nursing, social sciences and humanities. The goal is to create new theoretical or conceptual understandings from qualitative findings. This is basically how you can convert unique experiences into robust theories.
𝟖. 𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐨𝐫𝐞𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥 𝐑𝐞𝐯𝐢𝐞𝐰
This type focuses purely on theories. This kind of review compare frameworks, evaluate conceptual assumptions, and may propose modifications or new theoretical refinements. If your goal is to refine or build frameworks, this is the playground you want to be in. These reviews strengthen the conceptual foundation of research and are crucial when developing or critiquing theoretical perspectives.
𝟗. 𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐜𝐞𝐩𝐭𝐮𝐚𝐥 𝐑𝐞𝐯𝐢𝐞𝐰
A conceptual review digs into the ideas that shape a topic. Instead of focusing on methods or empirical findings, it analyzes the key concepts, definitions, and theoretical constructs used across the literature. The goal is to clarify how these concepts are understood, where they overlap, where they conflict, and how they can be refined. This type of review is especially useful when the field uses a bunch of related but inconsistently defined concepts. It may also be useful when you're trying to tighten or develop a theoretical framework. This review approach can also help when you want to build a conceptual foundation for a new research but lack the resources or time to engage deeply with established theory.
𝟏𝟎. 𝐌𝐚𝐩𝐩𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐑𝐞𝐯𝐢𝐞𝐰
A mapping review is very similar to a conceptual review. In fact, some researchers take them to mean the same thing. Just like a conceptual review, a mapping review aims to categorize, classify, or visually map concepts within a field. They clarify definitions, identify relationships among constructs, and support planning for further research. They offer moderate methodological structure and are helpful when scholars need to untangle complex ideas. Going by this definition alone, it is easy to get confused about how the two differ. However, a great hack for drawing the line is focusing on the intended end product of the review. Conceptual reviews primarily aid conceptual understanding of the key ideas. On the other hand, mapping reviews aim to produce some sort of visual maps, charts that identify the state of the knowledge on the topic. The maps or charts are meant to give an overview of the landscape highlighting such things as patterns, clusters, distributions etcs. In short, much like scoping studies, they organize the evidence base so researchers can see the landscape and plan future work. However, unlike scoping studies which focus on emerging fields, mapping studies may well focus on established areas of research.
𝟏𝟏. 𝐈𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐠𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐑𝐞𝐯𝐢𝐞𝐰
Integrative reviews mix and match different types of evidence to build a richer, more holistic understanding of a topic. A major strength of integrative reviews is that they are able to bridge methodological boundaries. This means they can build insights that borrow from quantitative, qualitative and theoretical knowledge. They’re very useful in interdisciplinary spaces where one type of data alone doesn’t tell the full story. Their flexibility allows for broader interpretations while maintaining structured synthesis.
𝐖𝐡𝐲 𝐝𝐨𝐞𝐬 𝐢𝐭 𝐦𝐚𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐤𝐧𝐨𝐰𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐝𝐢𝐟𝐟𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐭𝐲𝐩𝐞𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐯𝐢𝐞𝐰𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐞𝐱𝐢𝐬𝐭?
Each of the review styles discussed above fits a different purpose. For instance, some help you understand the big picture while others deliver high-powered evidence for decision-making. Others help you explore, map or critique what’s already out there. Whatever you are doing, there’s a literature review type designed to support that purpose. Together, these review types give researchers a versatile toolkit. Choosing the right type of review strengthens your research from the foundation up. If you can pinpoint the exact review approach that meets your objective, that can help you work smarter, not harder. It also makes your research way more aligned with the story you’re trying to tell.
Credit:
Augustine Chimwanga