How to Write a Literature Review: Step-by-Step Guide with UK Examples | Affordable Dissertation

In the UK, dissertation writing is an academic requirement for undergraduate and postgraduate students, and the literature review is a significant part of the dissertation.  In this section, you review key studies, identify main results, and synthesise their ideas. Staring at dozens of open journal tabs, many students fall into the same trap: writing a dull, descriptive summary that reads like an annotated bibliography. But UK university examiners aren’t looking for a list of what you’ve read; they want a critical argument showing what is known, what is contested, and what is missing. 

Whether you are an undergraduate tackling an empirical dissertation, a Master’s student producing an advanced research project, or a PhD candidate defending a thesis, this step-by-step guide prepared by Affordable Dissertation UK walks you through this entire process. Inside, you’ll find UK-calibrated word counts, systematic search strategies, a free literature review matrix, and before-and-after examples showing exactly how to turn weak summaries into First-Class honours dissertation critical synthesis.

Key Takeaways

• Students in the UK should follow 7 steps for a literature review.
• Different universities have different criteria and marking rubrics for literature reviews.
• Certain AI tools are permitted for extracting articles and reference management. 

How to Write a Literature Review in 7 Steps (Quick Answer)

If you are looking for a clear process to follow, here is how to write a literature review from initial topic to final draft: 

1. Define your scope and research questions: Clarify your core concepts, operational terms, and inclusion boundaries.
2. Search academic databases systematically: Use tailored Boolean search strings across subject-specific databases (such as Scopus, Web of Science, JSTOR, PubMed, or CINAHL).
3. Screen and evaluate sources: Filter results against strict appraisal criteria (methodological rigour, sample validity, recency, peer review).
4. Organise literature using a review matrix: Extract aims, methodologies, sample sizes, findings, limitations, and theoretical frameworks into structured columns.
5. Map themes, debates, and gaps: Code your matrix horizontally to identify where scholars agree, where they clash, and where research remains unaddressed.
6. Choose a structural model: Outline your chapters or sections using a thematic, methodological, or theoretical framework rather than a chronological shopping list.
7. Draft with critical synthesis: Weave multiple authors into single paragraphs around shared concepts, highlighting tensions and establishing the rationale for your own study.

Screening is an important step in a literature review that allows you to filter a vast literature. This screening process also enables you to recognise how many sources are required in your dissertation. The purpose of screening is to identify relevancy, recency, authority, methodology, evidence quality, and limitations of existing articles. 

What Is a Literature Review?

A literature review refers to the critical analysis of studies to address particular research questions and shed light on the topic. Instead of providing a list of summaries, it gathers studies and outlines their findings, points of consensus and disagreement, the strongest evidence, and gap of literature.  Let’s look at an example here.

What is NOT a literature review?

“Smith (2020) said X. Jones (2021) said Y.  Taylor (2023) said Z.” (Descriptive cataloguing) 

What IS a literature review?

“While quantitative trials indicate X (Smith, 2020), qualitative evaluations reveal Y (Jones, 2021). This methodological tension highlights an empirical gap regarding Z (Taylor, 2023).” (Critical synthesis) 

A literature review can be a separate chapter or a significant part of the dissertation, depending on the topic. Literature review assignments are similar to a standalone assignment, except that they typically are evaluated as a separate academic assignment. 

Purpose in a UK Dissertation

In UK higher education, examiners do not read your literature review merely to check that you have completed the assigned reading. They read it to evaluate your scholarly judgment.  Universities provide detailed guidelines about how to write a literature review. In a UK undergraduate or postgraduate dissertation, your review serves three core functions: 

• Contextualisation: Demonstrates command of the field’s seminal theories, classic debates, and contemporary empirical findings.
• Methodological Justification: Analyses how previous researchers investigated your subject, helping you justify why your chosen methodology is appropriate.
• Establishing the Research Gap: Demonstrates that your research questions do not appear out of thin air, but address a genuine unresolved problem in the literature.

Types of Literature Review

Not all literature reviews follow the same format. Selecting the right type depends on your discipline, dissertation level, and assignment brief: 

Narrative Literature Review (Thematic/Traditional)

Definition: A narrative literature review provides a descriptive synthesis and critical evaluation of existing studies.  

Methodology: In this format, students gather relevant data on a specific topic based on conceptual importance and academic merit without deploying rigid protocols or meta-synthesis. While flexible, the search and selection process should still be transparent, purposeful, and academically justifiable. 

When to use: Narrative reviews are ideal when the objective is to gain an understanding of how theories have evolved, compare conflicting views and see what the major academic debates are.It is the most common format for undergraduate and Master’s dissertation chapters across the humanities, business, and social sciences.

Systematic Literature Review (SLR)

Definition: An SLR is a structured and scientific research strategy through which students systematically select studies, appraise them, and address research-specific questions. 

Methodology: It adheres to strict, reproducible protocols (such as PRISMA). This includes pre-defined inclusion and exclusion criteria, documented multi-database search strings, comprehensive screening, and standardised risk-of-bias quality assessments. 

When to use: It is widely used in evidence-based medicine, healthcare and clinical disciplines. It can serve as a standalone research assignment, or form an empirical core chapter in postgraduate and doctoral dissertations.

Need more information? See our full-fledged guide on the systematic literature review here. 

Scoping Literature Review

Definition: A scoping review is a type of dissertation literature review that systematically maps the key concepts, evidence types, and operational boundaries across a broad, heterogeneous, or emerging field of study. 

Methodology: It follows a structured search and screening framework to explore the scope, breadth, and volume of available research studies, which distinguishes it from a narrative review. However, it typically does not conduct formal risk-of-bias scoring.

When to use: It is most effective when clarifying working definitions, determining whether a full systematic review is feasible, or identifying knowledge gaps in emerging, interdisciplinary subjects. It is often used for early-stage PhD scoping or exploratory Master’s dissertations. 

Integrative Literature Review

Definition: An integrative literature review synthesises theoretical literature alongside empirical research, combining both qualitative and quantitative evidence, to generate new conceptual frameworks and perspectives.

Methodology: It requires systematic data extraction and cross-methodological analysis, explicitly demonstrating how diverse research designs and epistemologies are harmonised and compared.

When to use: It is best suited for complex, multi-faceted topics in nursing, education, and public policy where empirical data alone cannot capture the complete practical and theoretical landscape. 

Important distinction from UK university libraries:

According to University of Sheffield library guidance, A narrative review conducted systematically is still not a formal systematic review. Even if you use structured Boolean search strings and documented screening criteria to ensure your narrative review is thorough, an authentic systematic review requires a pre-registered protocol, exhaustive search chains across all indexed databases, formal duplicate extraction, and standardised quality-scoring rubrics. Do not label a dissertation narrative review as a “Systematic Review” unless you are completing an accredited SLR module. 

How Long Should a Literature Review Be?

The length of a literature review depends directly on your degree level, overall word count, and whether your dissertation is empirical (collecting primary data or analysing secondary datasets) or purely literature-based (where the critical review forms the entire thesis). According to academic benchmarks published by UK institutions, such as the University of Kent, an undergraduate literature review chapter should generally be no more than 2,000 words, a Master’s review is typically around 2,000 to 3,000 words, and a PhD review forms a substantial chapter of approximately 8,000 to 10,000 words. It also recommends approximately 8-10 major pieces of literature for a dissertation of 8,000 words and up to 20 major pieces of literature for a 12,000-15,000 word dissertation. For a complete section-by-section word count breakdown, see this 15,000-word dissertation guide by Affordable Dissertations UK.

Typical literature review length by study level

How Many Sources Do You Need?

Students often ask: “Will I get a First if I cite 60 papers?”

The short answer is no. In UK universities, an uncritical list of 60 sources will consistently score a Lower Second (2:2), while 18 carefully appraised, synthesised, and cross-compared sources can achieve a solid First (70%+).

As the University of Kent notes, a helpful rule of thumb for an 8,000-word dissertation is to engage with 8 to 10 significant, high-impact pieces of work (the core theoretical and empirical papers that anchor your debate), scaling up to 20 major pieces for 12,000 to 15,000 words. Beyond these central pillars, you can use additional secondary references to establish broad contextual trends, provide empirical baseline figures, and support definitions.

Your department’s guidance comes first

Departmental course handbooks and supervisor instructions always override general university benchmarks, particularly in discipline-specific contexts (such as pure law or archival history dissertations). 

 In the UK, approximately 166 universities offer undergraduate and postgraduate degree programs. According to the University of Sheffield, students must organise themes and sources appropriately. They should also introduce key theories related to the topic. On the other hand, the University of Lincoln provides detailed guidelines and a literature review template for students, in which they must understand the difference between a systematic literature review and a narrative review. Similarly, it is also suggested that students should write a detailed literature review in the dissertation as a separate chapter. 

Step 1-3: Searching and Evaluating the Literature

A strong review begins with a systematic, reproducible search strategy rather than casual web browsing. 

Figure 1. Search funnel for searching and evaluating the literature

Step 1: Build Your Keywords and Search Strategy

Databases search for exact text matches, not conversational intent. Instead, break your research topic into independent conceptual pillars, brainstorm synonyms, and connect them using Boolean operators (AND, OR, NOT) along with truncation wildcards (*): 

Step 2: Search Academic and Grey-Literature Sources

In this step, use credible databases for academic search. Useful sources for different disciplines include JSTOR, Scopus, Web of Science, PubMed and CINAHL. The University of Sheffield suggests Scopus, Google Scholar, and Altmetric Explorer for academic search. In contrast, students can also approach grey literature through UK-focused research like GOV.UK, NICE and the Office for National Statistics (ONS). These can provide policy, clinical and population-level evidence that is not found in journals.

Step 3: Screen and Evaluate Your Sources

Step 3 relies on the screening and evaluation of sources. To assess whether a paper deserves inclusion in your literature review, run it through five quick tests, also known as the CRAAP framework:

• Currency: Is the empirical data relevant to current realities? (Aim for the majority of empirical studies to be from the last 5–7 years, unless referencing seminal, foundational theories).
• Relevance: Does the author’s primary research question speak directly to your specific focus, or is it only a passing mention?
• Authority: Is the study published in a reputable peer-reviewed academic journal? Check the authors’ academic affiliations and citation indices.   
• Accuracy: Did the researchers employ rigorous methods? Are the sample sizes statistically significant, or are qualitative samples triangulated effectively?

Purpose & Objectivity: Does the study exhibit commercial bias, unacknowledged corporate sponsorship, or selective sampling?

Figure 2: CRAAP framework for source screening

Appraisal Tools and Structural Checklists

Step 4: Organise Your Reading with a Literature Review Matrix

Trying to hold twenty academic papers in your memory without a structured recording system is the most common cause of writer’s block. A literature review matrix is a simple table grid that assists you to structure, contrast and assess the resources you discover on your literature search. The Univerinty of Sheffield provides a standardised literature review matrix to make it easier for students to locate ideas, themes, similarities, and differences in the studies. By using this literature matrix, students can identify the type of study such as qualitative or quantitative, its findings, and relevance. The theme column may later be used to organise studies into themes of a thematic literature review, and the relevance column may be used to prioritise the most relevant evidence. Here is a worked example of a literature review matrix that can act as a template for you. 

Stuck turning dozens of sources into a cohesive doctoral chapter? Let our UK PhD writing experts help you structure and synthesise your dissertation.

Step 5: Identify Themes, Debates and Gaps

Once you have recorded 10 to 15 papers in your matrix, read down each column instead of across each row. Look for recurring patterns, methodological disputes, and reseach gaps. Highlight similar ideas, results, groups, populations, methods or arguments to create themes in your matrix code. For similar studies, it is possible to use a short label and then cluster them in larger themes. 

Look for Common Types of Research Gaps

Literature Review Structure: Chronological, Thematic, Methodological, and Theoretical

Organising your review logically is essential for a clear academic argument. There are four primary ways to structure your literature review: 

In the UK, universities such as the University of Sheffield, University of Kent, and University of Lincoln provide guidelines for structuring a literature review. Regardless of your structural model, your chapter should follow this progression: 

• Introduction (~10% of chapter word count): Clearly state your topic, define core boundaries, explain the criteria used to select sources, and outline the sequence of themes you will discuss.
• Thematic Body Paragraphs (~80% of chapter word count): Group studies around central concepts, compare their findings, and critique their methodological designs.
• Conclusion (~10% of chapter word count): Summarise the consensus, emphasise key unresolved debates, clearly articulate the research gap, and show how your study addresses it.

Step 7: Writing with Synthesis, Not Summary

The characteristics of a good literature review include the synthesis of findings rather than summarising information. In the UK, students are advised to link the literature review with patterns, agreements, contradictions, and limitations. The University of Kent advises structuring your ideas and weighing up evidence in a logical way. 

The “Before” Example: Descriptive List (2:2 or Third-Class Level)

Bloom et al. (2015) studied working from home using a Chinese call centre. They found that telecommuting led to a 13% performance increase due to quieter working conditions. Another study by Felstead and Henseke (2017) examined remote work in the UK. They found that working from home was associated with higher job satisfaction, but also led to work intensification and difficulty unwinding. Furthermore, Choudhury et al. (2021) investigated US patent examiners. They discovered that working from anywhere increased productivity by 4.4%.

Why this fails UK marking criteria:

• List-like structure: Every sentence starts with the author’s name (Author A found X. Author B found Y. Author C found Z.).
• Zero synthesis: The author never explains how these three studies connect, contrast, or build on one another.
• Absence of critique: The samples (routine call-centre agents, broad national survey respondents, specialist patent examiners) are reported as equivalent facts without evaluating their methodologies or contexts.

The “After” Example: Critical Synthesis (First-Class / Distinction Level)

While early empirical investigations suggest that remote working models yield substantial productivity gains across routine and administrative roles (Bloom et al., 2015; Choudhury et al., 2021), these performance dividends are frequently accompanied by heightened work intensification and blurred domestic boundaries (Felstead and Henseke, 2017). Bloom et al. (2015) demonstrated a 13% productivity surge among home-based call-centre workers, a finding echoed by Choudhury et al.’s (2021) evaluation of autonomous patent examiners. However, these quantitative performance indicators rely heavily on structured task environments with easily quantifiable outputs. In contrast, Felstead and Henseke’s (2017) analysis of UK workforce data reveals that spatial flexibility often induces unpaid overtime, suggesting that reported efficiency gains may reflect longer working hours rather than improved hourly performance. Consequently, significant uncertainty remains regarding whether remote productivity gains can be maintained in collaborative, non-routine creative industries without eroding employee well-being.

Why this scores a First (70%+):

• Concept-first topic sentence: The paragraph opens with an overarching claim about remote working rather than an author’s name.
• Multi-source grouping: Authors are cited together to substantiate shared findings (Bloom et al., 2015; Choudhury et al., 2021).
• Methodological critique: The writer notes that positive findings may stem from the structured nature of routine call-centre tasks and explains how Felstead and Henseke’s findings introduce an alternative interpretation.
• Clear gap identification: The paragraph concludes by identifying an unresolved issue (collaborative, creative industries) that paves the way for further research.  

Pressed for time with your dissertation deadline? Save weeks of stress and buy dissertation online in the UK from verified subject specialists. 

Synthesis Phrases and Reporting Verbs

Useful phrases: Taken together, In contrast, Similarly, However, Collectively, These findings suggest, This evidence indicates

Critical verbs: Argues, Demonstrates, Suggests, Challenges, Questions, Identifies, Evaluates, Compares, Highlights, Supports, Contradicts

Use language: Suggests, May indicate, Appears to, Instead of, Must be

For additional guidance on refining your draft, review these top grammar tips for writing your dissertation to polish your prose and correct common language errors.

Being Critical Without Being Dismissive

A common misconception among students is that “being critical” means showing that all previous research is flawed. In UK academic writing, criticality means balanced evaluation. Acknowledge what a study contributed while fairly outlining its real-world limitations (e.g., sample size, specific cultural context, or retrospective self-reporting).

Literature Review Example: UK Undergraduate Extract

Section 2.1: Overview of Student Mental Health in the UK 

In the UK, students encounter significant mental health complications due to higher education requirements. According to ScotSMART et al. (2024), about 37% of students face moderate to severe anxiety. The evidence further indicates that whilst individual support is needed, it is not enough, as the mental health of students needs institutional responses. A Department for Education study identified that higher education organisations had established policies and services for students’ mental health and wellbeing, including plans for service delivery and for evaluation. However, evidence has not clearly determined the influence of other factors on the mental health of students.

Section 2.2: Academic Workload and Social Isolation (Theme)

Social pressure has a significant influence on the academic performance of students. In the UK, students face mental health challenges that is an important aspect discussed in the literature. According to Zara (2022), about 40% of students encountered distress that influenced their mental health. In contrast, Campbell et al. (2022) emphasised that academic and non-academic factors are associated with psychological distress in students attending UK universities. They discovered that loneliness was the greatest overall predictor of psychological distress, and assessment stress was the most important academic predictor. Therefore, it has been recognised that a positive relationship between students and university support because environment that is supportive and collaborative reduce stress among students. 

On the other hand, Weber et al. (2022) conducted a study with 363 students in order to assess the influence of loneliness on stress and depression among students. The results revealed that 38% of students developed depression and 25% of students had anxiety. Considering this, it is also mentioned that the authors found that mental health issues led to more loneliness. However, these studies suggest that loneliness is an important aspect that alters the mental health of students and also leads to poor academic performance.  Students’ experiences are not necessarily consistent across degree programmes. In contrast, Riboldi et al. (2023) conducted interviews with 30 students in order to shed light on the mental health of students. The results indicated difficulties in the study of psychology, such as the possibility that mental-health content being taught and worsening existing symptoms, and difficulties in accessing support networks within the university. This qualitative evidence complements survey results by providing a context of how mental health can relate to students’ individual educational experiences. Therefore, these findings showed that students have mental health issues that influence their academic performance. 

Section 2.3: Identifying the Research Gap 

In conclusion, the findings showed that students have mental health complications that are associated with social relationships, loneliness, and poor academic performance. But the current evidence varies in terms of population, methodology and institutional setting. Qualitative research can be used to give more detailed accounts of individual experiences, while larger-scale surveys can help detect broad patterns. The potential gap found in these studies include they have discussed students’ mental health, but different factors that alter mental health and academic outcomes were not clearly identified. Further study may highlight these gaps and provide in-depth insight for students.

Using AI Tools for Literature Reviews: What UK Universities Allow

In the UK, universities establish policies for using AI tools for literature reviews. For this purpose, students are permitted to use AI tools for limited steps such as extracting articles. According to the guidelines of the University of Sheffield, students are allowed to use AI tools such as Gemini Notebook to synthesise literature.

Figure 3: AI tools for literature review

Common Literature Review Mistakes

Avoid these eight common errors that often lower dissertation marks:

1. Writing a Series of Summaries: The most frequent error. If every paragraph begins with an author’s surname, you are summarising rather than synthesising.
2. Treating All Sources Equally: Citing an unrefereed commercial blog post alongside a seminal peer-reviewed journal article undermines your review’s academic authority.
3. Using Outdated Literature: Depending heavily on empirical data that is 10 to 15 years old—without explaining why—signals an outdated literature search.
4. Over-Relying on Direct Quotations: Filling your draft with long, block quotations hides your critical voice. As the University of Kent advises, summarise sources in your own words and reserve quotations for punchlines to drive a specific point home, otherwise it can lead to academic integrity issues. For more details on avoiding academic misconduct, read our guide on self-plagiarism in a dissertation.   
5. Failing to State a Research Gap: Describing scholarship without articulating what remains missing leaves your dissertation without a clear justification.
6. Broad, Unfocused Topic Scope: Trying to cover every dimension of a broad subject produces a superficial review. Focus tightly on your research questions.
7. Neglecting Opposing Evidence: Ignoring studies that contradict your preferred conclusions creates a biased review. UK examiners award higher marks when you address and evaluate counterarguments.
8. Inconsistent Citation Style: Mixing Harvard, AMA, APA, and OSCOLA conventions within the same chapter costs easy marks on presentation and referencing. Choose your department’s mandated style and apply it consistently.

Check our ultimate citation guide for multiple formats here. 

FAQs

How long should a literature review be for a UK dissertation?

The length is different for each level and institute. The number of words for undergraduate reviews is up to 2000 words (longer for master’s and PhD).

How many sources should I use in a literature review?

There is no specific number. Refer to sufficient, relevant, and credible sources to address the themes, debates and research areas. 

Can a literature review be written in the first person?

Academic writing uses an objective style, with a few universities allowing the occasional first person in dissertations.

How recent should sources in a literature review be?

Always consider recent research; include older studies if they have influenced your topic. 

What is the difference between a literature review and an annotated bibliography?

An annotated bibliography summarises and critically evaluates each of the sources, while a literature review synthesises the literature into themes. 

Is a literature review the same as a systematic review?

No. Most literature reviews are broader and less systematic and reproducible than a systematic review. 

Should my literature review have a conclusion?

Yes. In the conclusion, you should recap your findings, mention any relevant gaps in the literature and discuss how your study fills those gaps. 

Conclusion and Next Steps

In summary, writing a strong literature review is not about reading everything in your university library. It is about building a well-researched, critical argument that establishes the context for your own project. Set clear scope boundaries and search systematically using targeted Boolean strings.  Organise your reading with a structured review matrix to compare methods and findings easily.

Synthesise concepts horizontally rather than reviewing authors in isolation. Frame your final sections around the unresolved research gap that your dissertation investigates. An effective literature review requires moving beyond descriptive summaries to deliver critical synthesis, rigorous appraisal, and clear identification of research gaps. By systematically mapping key debates, selecting an appropriate structural model, and maintaining a clear analytical voice, students can construct a compelling foundation for their dissertation.