How to Write Review of Related Literature

How to Write a Review of Related Literature: The Complete Guide for Nigerian Students and Researchers

Estimated reading time: 8 minutes

Why Your Review of Related Literature Is Critical to Your Research Success

If you’re searching for how to write a review of related literature, you’re likely facing one of the most challenging components of academic research. Whether you’re a student at UNILAG, University of Ibadan, or any Nigerian institution, or pursuing research internationally, you’ve probably discovered that the RRL isn’t as straightforward as it seems.

Here’s the truth: a poorly executed Review of Related Literature can undermine an otherwise solid research project. Conversely, a well-crafted RRL can elevate your entire thesis or dissertation, demonstrating to your supervisors and examiners that you have a comprehensive grasp of your field and a justified research direction.

The challenge most students face is that they receive minimal guidance on how to approach this critical section. You’re expected to review, synthesize, and present existing knowledge in a way that is both comprehensive and insightful, often without clear instruction on what that actually means in practice. This is precisely where many students get stuck, spending weeks reading papers without knowing how to structure their findings into a coherent narrative.

This is where PremiumResearchers comes in. If you find yourself overwhelmed by the volume of literature, struggling to identify which sources are most relevant, or uncertain about how to synthesize findings into a compelling narrative, professional support can save you weeks of frustration. Our team of experienced researchers specializes in helping students and academics craft literature reviews that not only meet but exceed institutional requirements. Whether you need guidance on organization, assistance with research, or a complete professional literature review, contact us via WhatsApp to explore how we can support your academic journey.

Common Mistakes Students Make When Writing a Literature Review

Understanding what NOT to do is often as valuable as knowing what TO do. Here are the most common pitfalls we see students make when tackling their review of related literature:

Mistake 1: Summarizing Instead of Synthesizing

This is the most frequent error. Students read a paper and write: “Smith (2024) found that social media impacts student engagement positively. Jones (2023) found similar results with teenagers.” This is summarization, not synthesis.

Synthesis would be: “Recent research demonstrates a growing consensus that social media, when used strategically, enhances student engagement (Smith, 2024; Jones, 2023). However, the mechanisms through which engagement occurs differ significantly across age groups, with Smith emphasizing collaborative features while Jones highlights peer interaction dynamics.”

Mistake 2: Using Weak or Outdated Sources

Your literature review is only as strong as your sources. Many students grab the first available papers without evaluating their credibility, sample sizes, or methodological rigor. A review built on weak foundations will be challenged by examiners.

Mistake 3: Failing to Identify Research Gaps

The entire purpose of a literature review is to justify why your research is needed. If your RRL doesn’t clearly articulate what gaps your research will fill, you’ve missed the core objective. This gap identification is what legitimizes your research question.

Mistake 4: Poor Organization and Flow

A disorganized literature review reads like a collection of book reports rather than a cohesive narrative. Readers should be able to follow a logical progression that builds toward your research justification.

Mistake 5: Inadequate Critical Analysis

Simply presenting what researchers found isn’t enough. You need to evaluate their work: Were their methodologies sound? Were their sample sizes adequate? Did their conclusions align with their data? This critical perspective distinguishes a strong literature review from a weak one.

Understanding the Real Purpose of a Review of Related Literature

A Review of Related Literature is fundamentally different from a simple book report or summary of available literature. It serves multiple interconnected purposes within your research project, and understanding these purposes will transform how you approach the task.

1. Contextualization: Situating Your Research

Your RRL answers the fundamental question: “What do we already know about this topic?” It provides readers with a comprehensive understanding of existing knowledge, theories, and findings related to your research area. This context is essential because it helps your examiners understand what is already established and what remains unknown.

Think of it as building the foundation for a house. Before anyone can evaluate your new construction, they need to understand what already exists in the neighborhood.

2. Gap Identification: Justifying Your Research

By thoroughly reviewing literature, you reveal gaps, contradictions, or unanswered questions that your research will address. This is crucial because it answers the “So what?” question. Why should anyone care about your research? What will it contribute to the field that isn’t already known?

For example, if existing literature has extensively studied the impact of technology on learning in developed nations but minimal research exists for resource-limited African contexts, your research focusing on that gap becomes inherently justified and valuable.

3. Framework Development: Building Your Research Foundation

Your RRL provides the theoretical and conceptual framework upon which your research is built. The theories, models, and approaches identified in your literature review become the lens through which you examine your own research questions.

4. Establishing Authority: Demonstrating Expertise

A comprehensive, well-synthesized literature review demonstrates that you have invested significant effort in understanding your field. It signals to examiners and readers that you are not approaching your research casually, but with genuine expertise and informed perspective.

Organizing Your Literature: Thematic vs. Chronological Approaches

One of the most critical decisions you’ll make when writing your review of related literature is how to organize your sources. The structure you choose will significantly impact readability and the persuasiveness of your synthesis. The two primary organizational approaches each have distinct advantages depending on your research context.

Thematic Organization: Grouping by Topic and Concept

Thematic organization groups literature around central themes, concepts, or subtopics related to your research question. This approach is ideal when you want to explore different dimensions of your topic systematically.

When to Use Thematic Organization:

• Your research explores multiple dimensions of a single issue
• You need to compare and contrast different perspectives on the same topic
• Your research question benefits from exploring different theoretical approaches
• You want to highlight connections across different research areas

Example Thematic Structure:

For a research project on “The Impact of Remote Learning on Student Performance in Nigerian Universities,” a thematic organization might look like:

• Theme 1: Technological Infrastructure and Access – Literature examining internet availability, device access, and platform quality
• Theme 2: Student Engagement and Motivation – Research on how remote delivery affects student participation and motivation
• Theme 3: Academic Outcomes and Assessment – Studies measuring learning effectiveness and assessment methods in remote environments
• Theme 4: Psychological and Social Impacts – Literature on student mental health, isolation, and peer interaction

This organization allows readers to follow a logical progression through different aspects of your topic, with each theme building on previous understanding.

Chronological Organization: Tracking Evolution Over Time

Chronological organization presents literature in the order it was published, allowing you to demonstrate how research, understanding, and theories have evolved over time.

When to Use Chronological Organization:

• Your topic has a clear historical development or evolution
• You want to show how theories have been refined or superseded
• Recent research significantly contradicts or improves upon earlier findings
• The emergence of new methodologies or tools has changed the field

Example Chronological Structure:

For research on “The Evolution of Educational Technology in Africa,” you might structure it as:

• Early Period (2000-2010): Initial adoption of basic computer literacy programs
• Growth Phase (2010-2018): Expansion to mobile learning and internet-based platforms
• Consolidation Period (2018-Present): Integration of AI, adaptive learning, and contextually relevant solutions

This approach makes it clear how the field has matured and what current best practices have emerged from decades of implementation.

Hybrid Organization: Combining Both Approaches

Many sophisticated literature reviews combine both approaches. For instance, you might organize primarily by theme, but within each theme, discuss how understanding has evolved chronologically. This hybrid approach often provides the most comprehensive and nuanced review of related literature.

Synthesizing vs. Summarizing Literature: The Critical Difference

This distinction is perhaps the most important concept in writing an effective review of related literature. Most students understand summarization naturally because they’ve been taught to write summaries throughout their academic careers. However, synthesis requires a different skill set and mindset.

What is Summarization?

Summarization involves condensing the main points of a source into a shorter form. It answers the question: “What did this study find or argue?” A summary is factual and neutral, presenting information without significant interpretation or comparison.

Example of Summary: “Lee (2024) investigated the relationship between social media usage and academic performance in 500 university students. The study found that students using social media for more than 4 hours daily had lower GPA scores compared to those using it for less than 2 hours daily. The author concluded that excessive social media use negatively impacts academic performance.”

This tells readers what the study found, but it doesn’t help them understand how this finding relates to other research or what it means in the broader context of your research area.

What is Synthesis?

Synthesis involves combining insights from multiple sources to draw broader conclusions, identify patterns, highlight contradictions, and build a coherent narrative. It answers the questions: “What do all these studies collectively tell us? Where do they agree or disagree? What patterns emerge? What remains unanswered?”

Example of Synthesis: “Recent research on social media and academic performance reveals a more nuanced relationship than initially presumed. While studies like Lee (2024) and Martinez (2023) document negative correlations with excessive usage, both researchers note that the effect size depends significantly on the type of social media engagement. Lee found that passive scrolling correlated with lower performance, while Martinez emphasized that collaborative, academically-focused social media use actually enhanced peer learning. This suggests that rather than social media inherently damaging academic performance, the manner and purpose of usage are critical moderating variables. This distinction is crucial for researchers seeking to develop interventions, as blanket restrictions may prove less effective than targeted strategies promoting purposeful usage.”

This synthesis pulls together multiple sources to create a more sophisticated understanding of the topic while identifying what remains unclear (the most effective intervention strategies).

Techniques for Effective Synthesis

1. Comparative Analysis

Deliberately compare and contrast findings from different studies. Ask yourself: Where do researchers agree? Where do they diverge? What explains these differences? Are differences due to different methodologies, sample populations, time periods, or geographic contexts?

Example: “While African studies emphasize the role of limited digital infrastructure (Okafor, 2023; Amara, 2024), research from developed nations focuses primarily on pedagogical implementation strategies (Thompson, 2024; Anderson, 2023). This divergence suggests that developing context-specific solutions requires first addressing infrastructure barriers before optimizing teaching methods.”

2. Critical Evaluation

Don’t simply accept findings at face value. Evaluate the quality, relevance, and limitations of each study. Consider sample sizes, methodologies, potential biases, and generalizability. A strong literature review acknowledges the strengths and limitations of the research it discusses.

Example: “While Smith’s (2024) longitudinal study of 5,000 students provides robust evidence for the long-term effects of mentorship on student retention, his research was conducted exclusively at elite American universities. Therefore, while his findings are methodologically sound, their applicability to resource-limited African contexts remains uncertain, highlighting a gap this research will address.”

3. Identifying Patterns and Trends

Look across multiple sources to identify patterns. Are certain findings appearing repeatedly? Are older findings being challenged by newer research? Are specific variables consistently affecting outcomes?

Example: “A consistent pattern emerges across fifteen studies spanning the last decade: student engagement increases when educational technology is accompanied by instructor training and institutional support (Davis, 2020; Chen, 2021; Okafor, 2024). Studies implementing technology without such support showed minimal or negative outcomes. This pattern suggests that technology alone is insufficient; institutional capacity building is equally critical.”

4. Strategic Use of Direct Quotations

While most of your literature review should be in your own words (paraphrased), occasional direct quotations can be powerful when:

• A source presents a particularly clear definition of a key concept
• A statement is so impactfully worded that paraphrasing would weaken it
• You need to highlight a contradiction or particularly notable claim

However, overusing quotations (more than 10% of your RRL should be direct quotes) suggests you’re summarizing rather than synthesizing. The bulk of your synthesis should be in your own analytical voice.

Citation Practices in Literature Reviews

Proper citation is non-negotiable in academic writing. Beyond the obvious ethical requirement to credit sources and avoid plagiarism, accurate citations add credibility to your work and allow readers to verify your claims and explore sources further.

Understanding Citation Styles

Different academic disciplines have preferred citation styles. The three most common are APA, MLA, and Chicago style. Nigerian institutions typically require one of these formats, so verify your institution’s specific requirements before beginning your literature review.

APA Style (American Psychological Association)

APA is widely used in social sciences, psychology, education, and business. It emphasizes the publication date of sources.

In-text citation format: (Author, Year) or Author (Year) found that…

Example: Research demonstrates that effective leadership requires emotional intelligence (Goleman, 2000). Alternatively: Goleman (2000) argues that emotional intelligence is essential for effective leadership.

Reference list format:

Author, A. A., & Author, B. B. (Year). Title of the work. Publisher.

Example: Goleman, D. (2000). Leadership that gets results. Harvard Business Review Press.

MLA Style (Modern Language Association)

MLA is commonly used in humanities, literature, and language studies.

In-text citation format: (Author Page) at the end of the sentence or clause

Example: Research demonstrates that effective leadership requires emotional intelligence (Goleman 45).

Works Cited format:

Author Last Name, First Name. Title of Work. Publisher, Year.

Example: Goleman, Daniel. Leadership That Gets Results. Harvard Business Review Press, 2000.

Chicago Style

Chicago style is used in history, humanities, and some social sciences. It allows for both footnote/endnote citations and a bibliography.

Citation Management Tools: Streamlining Your Process

Manually formatting citations is tedious and error-prone. Citation management tools automate this process and help you organize your sources efficiently.

• Zotero: Free, open-source tool that integrates with word processors and browsers. Excellent for importing citations from databases directly into your library.
• Mendeley: Popular tool with a user-friendly interface. Offers both free and premium versions with cloud storage capabilities.
• EndNote: Powerful commercial tool preferred by many academic institutions. Offers extensive functionality for large research projects.
• Google Scholar: Free resource that provides citation formats for published research. Simple to use but less comprehensive than dedicated tools.

Using these tools ensures consistency, saves time, and reduces citation errors, which are common reasons examiners dock marks from otherwise strong literature reviews.

Avoiding Plagiarism in Your Literature Review

Plagiarism is a serious academic offense that can result in failing grades, disciplinary action, or even expulsion. In your literature review, plagiarism occurs when you:

• Use someone else’s words without quotation marks and proper citation
• Paraphrase too closely to the original text (even with a citation)
• Fail to cite paraphrased ideas or findings
• Cite a source you haven’t actually read (citing citations)

To maintain academic integrity, always:

• Use quotation marks for direct quotes and provide page numbers
• Paraphrase in your own words and cite the original source
• When in doubt, cite the source
• Use plagiarism detection tools (Turnitin, Grammarly) to check your work
• Keep careful records of all sources as you research

Practical Examples of Review of Related Literature

Understanding how synthesis works in practice can be more instructive than theoretical explanations. Here are realistic examples of how to approach different types of literature review scenarios.

Example 1: Technology and Student Learning Outcomes

Research question: How does the integration of mobile technology affect student engagement and learning outcomes in secondary schools?

Thematic section with synthesis:

“The impact of mobile technology on classroom engagement reveals a complex interplay between technology capabilities, teacher training, and implementation context. While Oladele (2024) documents that Nigerian secondary schools introducing tablet-based learning saw 35% improvement in participation rates, this outcome was directly attributed to comprehensive teacher professional development. Conversely, Adeyemi’s (2023) study of similar technology implementation without teacher training showed minimal improvement in engagement and reported student frustration with technical difficulties.

The divergence between these findings highlights a critical variable: the implementation framework itself, not merely the technology, determines outcomes. Additionally, both studies acknowledge substantial infrastructure challenges in Nigerian schools, from inadequate power supply to limited internet connectivity. These contextual factors suggest that mobile technology, while promising, cannot be implemented using strategies developed in resource-rich environments. The research gap becomes apparent: Nigerian schools need studies examining how mobile learning can be implemented successfully within existing resource constraints, rather than simply importing international best practices.”

This example demonstrates:

• Synthesis of multiple sources (comparison of outcomes)
• Critical analysis (identifying the key variable: teacher training)
• Gap identification (the need for context-specific implementation research)
• Contextual relevance to Nigerian higher education

Example 2: Chronological Organization of Mental Health Interventions

Research question: How have mental health support approaches in African universities evolved, and what gaps remain?

Chronological section with synthesis:

“The evolution of mental health support in African universities can be traced through three distinct phases. The first phase (2010-2016) was characterized by awareness-building efforts. Pioneering research by Omigbodun (2010) and Khandelwal (2012) highlighted the prevalence of mental health challenges among university students, establishing that this was not merely a problem in developed nations but significantly affecting African student populations.

The second phase (2016-2020) shifted toward intervention development. Studies by Adebayo (2018) and Mutabaruka (2019) implemented campus counseling services and peer support programs. While these interventions showed promise, they were typically pilot programs with limited scalability. The research of this period revealed that interventions developed in Western contexts required substantial adaptation for African university environments.

The third phase (2020-present) represents a transition toward integrated, context-sensitive approaches. Recent research by Okafor (2024) and Mwangi (2024) emphasizes community-based mental health, integration with traditional healing practices, and addressing social determinants like poverty and discrimination. This evolution reflects growing recognition that mental health interventions must address not only individual psychology but also the social, economic, and cultural contexts in which African university students live.

Notably, however, most research remains concentrated in a handful of countries (Kenya, South Africa, Nigeria). The vast majority of African universities lack published evidence about what works in their contexts, representing a substantial research gap this study will help address.”

This example demonstrates:

• Clear chronological progression showing field evolution
• Pattern recognition (adaptation of Western models, shifting toward integrated approaches)
• Critical analysis (limitations of earlier interventions)
• Gap identification (limited research across most African countries)

Example 3: Evaluating Policy Implementation

Research question: How effective have free education policies been in improving access and learning outcomes in West African public schools?

Mixed organizational approach:

“The impact of free education policies in West Africa has been extensively researched, revealing significant gaps between policy intent and implementation outcomes. Initial optimism following policy implementation (Ghana 2017, Ivory Coast 2016) was supported by access metrics: enrollment increased substantially in the first two years (Owusu-Mensah, 2017). However, subsequent longitudinal studies (2019-2024) reveal a more complex reality.

Access gains have not translated proportionally into learning outcomes. Asante’s (2022) large-scale study across West African nations found that while enrollment increased by 40%, learning outcome improvements averaged only 12%. The research identifies three critical factors explaining this gap. First, rapid enrollment expansion without corresponding teacher recruitment created severe pupil-teacher ratios, sometimes exceeding 80:1 (Okonkwo, 2023). Second, infrastructure investments lagged behind access expansion, with many schools lacking basic facilities (Mensah, 2024). Third, quality of teaching, rather than access alone, emerged as the primary predictor of learning outcomes.

These findings suggest that while removal of financial barriers successfully increases access, improving learning outcomes requires simultaneous investment in human and physical capital. Current policy implementations have addressed one component of educational quality; comprehensive improvement requires addressing all components simultaneously. This theoretical understanding informs the present study’s examination of school-level mechanisms for translating access into learning gains.”

This example demonstrates:

• Synthesis across multiple studies identifying consistent patterns
• Critical analysis of policy outcomes versus intentions
• Identification of specific mechanisms explaining outcomes
• Clear articulation of research justification based on findings

Actionable Steps to Write Your Review of Related Literature

Understanding the concepts is one thing; executing them is another. Here are concrete, sequential steps you can implement immediately to begin writing a strong review of related literature.