significance of literature review in historical research

Why is it important to do a literature review in research?

The importance of scientific communication in the healthcare industry

The Importance and Role of Biostatistics in Clinical Research

 “A substantive, thorough, sophisticated literature review is a precondition for doing substantive, thorough, sophisticated research”. Boote and Baile 2005

Authors of manuscripts treat writing a literature review as a routine work or a mere formality. But a seasoned one knows the purpose and importance of a well-written literature review.  Since it is one of the basic needs for researches at any level, they have to be done vigilantly. Only then the reader will know that the basics of research have not been neglected.

The aim of any literature review is to summarize and synthesize the arguments and ideas of existing knowledge in a particular field without adding any new contributions.   Being built on existing knowledge they help the researcher to even turn the wheels of the topic of research.  It is possible only with profound knowledge of what is wrong in the existing findings in detail to overpower them.  For other researches, the literature review gives the direction to be headed for its success. 

The common perception of literature review and reality:

As per the common belief, literature reviews are only a summary of the sources related to the research. And many authors of scientific manuscripts believe that they are only surveys of what are the researches are done on the chosen topic.  But on the contrary, it uses published information from pertinent and relevant sources like

• Scholarly books
• Scientific papers
• Latest studies in the field
• Established school of thoughts
• Relevant articles from renowned scientific journals

and many more for a field of study or theory or a particular problem to do the following:

• Summarize into a brief account of all information
• Synthesize the information by restructuring and reorganizing
• Critical evaluation of a concept or a school of thought or ideas
• Familiarize the authors to the extent of knowledge in the particular field
• Encapsulate
• Compare & contrast

By doing the above on the relevant information, it provides the reader of the scientific manuscript with the following for a better understanding of it:

• It establishes the authors’  in-depth understanding and knowledge of their field subject
• It gives the background of the research
• Portrays the scientific manuscript plan of examining the research result
• Illuminates on how the knowledge has changed within the field
• Highlights what has already been done in a particular field
• Information of the generally accepted facts, emerging and current state of the topic of research
• Identifies the research gap that is still unexplored or under-researched fields
• Demonstrates how the research fits within a larger field of study
• Provides an overview of the sources explored during the research of a particular topic

Importance of literature review in research:

The importance of literature review in scientific manuscripts can be condensed into an analytical feature to enable the multifold reach of its significance.  It adds value to the legitimacy of the research in many ways:

• Provides the interpretation of existing literature in light of updated developments in the field to help in establishing the consistency in knowledge and relevancy of existing materials
• It helps in calculating the impact of the latest information in the field by mapping their progress of knowledge.
• It brings out the dialects of contradictions between various thoughts within the field to establish facts
• The research gaps scrutinized initially are further explored to establish the latest facts of theories to add value to the field
• Indicates the current research place in the schema of a particular field
• Provides information for relevancy and coherency to check the research
• Apart from elucidating the continuance of knowledge, it also points out areas that require further investigation and thus aid as a starting point of any future research
• Justifies the research and sets up the research question
• Sets up a theoretical framework comprising the concepts and theories of the research upon which its success can be judged
• Helps to adopt a more appropriate methodology for the research by examining the strengths and weaknesses of existing research in the same field
• Increases the significance of the results by comparing it with the existing literature
• Provides a point of reference by writing the findings in the scientific manuscript
• Helps to get the due credit from the audience for having done the fact-finding and fact-checking mission in the scientific manuscripts
• The more the reference of relevant sources of it could increase more of its trustworthiness with the readers
• Helps to prevent plagiarism by tailoring and uniquely tweaking the scientific manuscript not to repeat other’s original idea
• By preventing plagiarism , it saves the scientific manuscript from rejection and thus also saves a lot of time and money
• Helps to evaluate, condense and synthesize gist in the author’s own words to sharpen the research focus
• Helps to compare and contrast to  show the originality and uniqueness of the research than that of the existing other researches
• Rationalizes the need for conducting the particular research in a specified field
• Helps to collect data accurately for allowing any new methodology of research than the existing ones
• Enables the readers of the manuscript to answer the following questions of its readers for its better chances for publication
• What do the researchers know?
• What do they not know?
• Is the scientific manuscript reliable and trustworthy?
• What are the knowledge gaps of the researcher?

22. It helps the readers to identify the following for further reading of the scientific manuscript:

• What has been already established, discredited and accepted in the particular field of research
• Areas of controversy and conflicts among different schools of thought
• Unsolved problems and issues in the connected field of research
• The emerging trends and approaches
• How the research extends, builds upon and leaves behind from the previous research

A profound literature review with many relevant sources of reference will enhance the chances of the scientific manuscript publication in renowned and reputed scientific journals .

References:

http://www.math.montana.edu/jobo/phdprep/phd6.pdf

journal Publishing services  |  Scientific Editing Services  |  Medical Writing Services  |  scientific research writing service  |  Scientific communication services

Related Topics:

Meta Analysis

Scientific Research Paper Writing

Medical Research Paper Writing

Scientific Communication in healthcare

pubrica academy

Related posts.

Statistical analyses of case-control studies

PUB - Selecting material (e.g. excipient, active pharmaceutical ingredient) for drug development

Selecting material (e.g. excipient, active pharmaceutical ingredient, packaging material) for drug development

PUB - Health Economics of Data Modeling

Health economics in clinical trials

Comments are closed.

College of Arts and Sciences

History and American Studies

• What courses will I take as an History major?
• What can I do with my History degree?
• History 485
• History Resources
• What will I learn from my American Studies major?
• What courses will I take as an American Studies major?
• What can I do with my American Studies degree?
• American Studies 485
• For Prospective Students
• Student Research Grants
• Honors and Award Recipients
• Phi Alpha Theta

Alumni Intros

• Internships

Literature Review Guidelines

Literature review (historiographic essay): making sense of what has been written on your topic., goals of a literature review:.

Before doing work in primary sources, historians must know what has been written on their topic.  They must be familiar with theories and arguments–as well as facts–that appear in secondary sources.

Before you proceed with your research project, you too must be familiar with the literature: you do not want to waste time on theories that others have disproved and you want to take full advantage of what others have argued.  You want to be able to discuss and analyze your topic.

Your literature review will demonstrate your familiarity with your topic’s secondary literature.

GUIDELINES FOR A LITERATURE REVIEW:

1) LENGTH:  8-10 pages of text for Senior Theses (485) (consult with your professor for other classes), with either footnotes or endnotes and with a works-consulted bibliography. [See also the  citation guide  on this site.]

2) NUMBER OF WORKS REVIEWED: Depends on the assignment, but for Senior Theses (485), at least ten is typical.

3) CHOOSING WORKS:

Your literature review must include enough works to provide evidence of both the breadth and the depth of the research on your topic or, at least, one important angle of it.  The number of works necessary to do this will depend on your topic. For most topics, AT LEAST TEN works (mostly books but also significant scholarly articles) are necessary, although you will not necessarily give all of them equal treatment in your paper (e.g., some might appear in notes rather than the essay). 4) ORGANIZING/ARRANGING THE LITERATURE:

As you uncover the literature (i.e., secondary writing) on your topic, you should determine how the various pieces relate to each other.  Your ability to do so will demonstrate your understanding of the evolution of literature.

You might determine that the literature makes sense when divided by time period, by methodology, by sources, by discipline, by thematic focus, by race, ethnicity, and/or gender of author, or by political ideology.  This list is not exhaustive.  You might also decide to subdivide categories based on other criteria.  There is no “rule” on divisions—historians wrote the literature without consulting each other and without regard to the goal of fitting into a neat, obvious organization useful to students.

The key step is to FIGURE OUT the most logical, clarifying angle.  Do not arbitrarily choose a categorization; use the one that the literature seems to fall into.  How do you do that?  For every source, you should note its thesis, date, author background, methodology, and sources.  Does a pattern appear when you consider such information from each of your sources?  If so, you have a possible thesis about the literature.  If not, you might still have a thesis.

Consider: Are there missing elements in the literature?  For example, no works published during a particular (usually fairly lengthy) time period?  Or do studies appear after long neglect of a topic?  Do interpretations change at some point?  Does the major methodology being used change?  Do interpretations vary based on sources used?

Follow these links for more help on analyzing  historiography  and  historical perspective .

5) CONTENTS OF LITERATURE REVIEW:

The literature review is a research paper with three ingredients:

a) A brief discussion of the issue (the person, event, idea). [While this section should be brief, it needs to set up the thesis and literature that follow.] b) Your thesis about the literature c) A clear argument, using the works on topic as evidence, i.e., you discuss the sources in relation to your thesis, not as a separate topic.

These ingredients must be presented in an essay with an introduction, body, and conclusion.

6) ARGUING YOUR THESIS:

The thesis of a literature review should not only describe how the literature has evolved, but also provide a clear evaluation of that literature.  You should assess the literature in terms of the quality of either individual works or categories of works.  For instance, you might argue that a certain approach (e.g. social history, cultural history, or another) is better because it deals with a more complex view of the issue or because they use a wider array of source materials more effectively. You should also ensure that you integrate that evaluation throughout your argument.  Doing so might include negative assessments of some works in order to reinforce your argument regarding the positive qualities of other works and approaches to the topic.

Within each group, you should provide essential information about each work: the author’s thesis, the work’s title and date, the author’s supporting arguments and major evidence.

In most cases, arranging the sources chronologically by publication date within each section makes the most sense because earlier works influenced later ones in one way or another.  Reference to publication date also indicates that you are aware of this significant historiographical element.

As you discuss each work, DO NOT FORGET WHY YOU ARE DISCUSSING IT.  YOU ARE PRESENTING AND SUPPORTING A THESIS ABOUT THE LITERATURE.

When discussing a particular work for the first time, you should refer to it by the author’s full name, the work’s title, and year of publication (either in parentheses after the title or worked into the sentence).

For example, “The field of slavery studies has recently been transformed by Ben Johnson’s The New Slave (2001)” and “Joe Doe argues in his 1997 study, Slavery in America, that . . . .”

Your paper should always note secondary sources’ relationship to each other, particularly in terms of your thesis about the literature (e.g., “Unlike Smith’s work, Mary Brown’s analysis reaches the conclusion that . . . .” and “Because of Anderson’s reliance on the president’s personal papers, his interpretation differs from Barry’s”). The various pieces of the literature are “related” to each other, so you need to indicate to the reader some of that relationship.  (It helps the reader follow your thesis, and it convinces the reader that you know what you are talking about.)

7) DOCUMENTATION:

Each source you discuss in your paper must be documented using footnotes/endnotes and a bibliography.  Providing author and title and date in the paper is not sufficient.  Use correct Turabian/Chicago Manual of Style form.  [See  Bibliography  and  Footnotes/Endnotes  pages.]

In addition, further supporting, but less significant, sources should be included in  content foot or endnotes .  (e.g., “For a similar argument to Ben Johnson’s, see John Terry, The Slave Who Was New (New York: W. W. Norton, 1985), 3-45.”)

8 ) CONCLUSION OF LITERATURE REVIEW:

Your conclusion should not only reiterate your argument (thesis), but also discuss questions that remain unanswered by the literature.  What has the literature accomplished?  What has not been studied?  What debates need to be settled?

Additional writing guidelines

How have History & American Studies majors built careers after earning their degrees? Learn more by clicking the image above.  

Recent Posts

• History and American Studies Symposium–April 26, 2024
• Fall 2024 Courses
• Fall 2023 Symposium – 12/8 – All Welcome!
• Spring ’24 Course Flyers
• Internship Opportunity – Chesapeake Gateways Ambassador
• Congratulations to our Graduates!
• History and American Studies Symposium–April 21, 2023
• View umwhistory’s profile on Facebook
• View umwhistory’s profile on Twitter

HIST495 Introduction to Historical Interpretation (History Honors)

• Getting Started
• Consulting Reference Materials for Overview/Background Information
• Finding Primary Sources
• Finding Secondary Sources (Books and Articles)
• Locating Book Reviews

Guidelines and Examples

3 simple steps to get your literature review done (nus libraries).

• Creating an Annotated Bibliography
• Strategies for Building Your Bibliography
• Special Collections and Archives Outside of the US
• Rose Library, Emory University and Other Archives Within Georgia
• Writing & Citing
• Library Assignments
• Introduction to Literature Reviews (UNC)
• Literature Review Guidelines (Univ. of Mary Washington)
• Organizing Research for Arts and Humanities Papers and Theses: Writing A Literature Review
• Write a Literature Review (JHU)
• Example from the University of Mary Washington

• << Previous: Locating Book Reviews
• Next: Creating an Annotated Bibliography >>
• Last Updated: Mar 27, 2024 11:50 AM
• URL: https://guides.libraries.emory.edu/main/histhonors

• University of Texas Libraries

Literature Reviews

• What is a literature review?
• Steps in the Literature Review Process
• Define your research question
• Determine inclusion and exclusion criteria
• Choose databases and search
• Review Results
• Synthesize Results
• Analyze Results
• Librarian Support

What is a Literature Review?

A literature or narrative review is a comprehensive review and analysis of the published literature on a specific topic or research question. The literature that is reviewed contains: books, articles, academic articles, conference proceedings, association papers, and dissertations. It contains the most pertinent studies and points to important past and current research and practices. It provides background and context, and shows how your research will contribute to the field. 

A literature review should: 

• Provide a comprehensive and updated review of the literature;
• Explain why this review has taken place;
• Articulate a position or hypothesis;
• Acknowledge and account for conflicting and corroborating points of view

From  S age Research Methods

Purpose of a Literature Review

A literature review can be written as an introduction to a study to:

• Demonstrate how a study fills a gap in research
• Compare a study with other research that's been done

Or it can be a separate work (a research article on its own) which:

• Organizes or describes a topic
• Describes variables within a particular issue/problem

Limitations of a Literature Review

Some of the limitations of a literature review are:

• It's a snapshot in time. Unlike other reviews, this one has beginning, a middle and an end. There may be future developments that could make your work less relevant.
• It may be too focused. Some niche studies may miss the bigger picture.
• It can be difficult to be comprehensive. There is no way to make sure all the literature on a topic was considered.
• It is easy to be biased if you stick to top tier journals. There may be other places where people are publishing exemplary research. Look to open access publications and conferences to reflect a more inclusive collection. Also, make sure to include opposing views (and not just supporting evidence).

Source: Grant, Maria J., and Andrew Booth. “A Typology of Reviews: An Analysis of 14 Review Types and Associated Methodologies.” Health Information & Libraries Journal, vol. 26, no. 2, June 2009, pp. 91–108. Wiley Online Library, doi:10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x.

Meryl Brodsky : Communication and Information Studies

Hannah Chapman Tripp : Biology, Neuroscience

Carolyn Cunningham : Human Development & Family Sciences, Psychology, Sociology

Larayne Dallas : Engineering

Janelle Hedstrom : Special Education, Curriculum & Instruction, Ed Leadership & Policy ​

Susan Macicak : Linguistics

Imelda Vetter : Dell Medical School

For help in other subject areas, please see the guide to library specialists by subject .

Periodically, UT Libraries runs a workshop covering the basics and library support for literature reviews. While we try to offer these once per academic year, we find providing the recording to be helpful to community members who have missed the session. Following is the most recent recording of the workshop, Conducting a Literature Review. To view the recording, a UT login is required.

• October 26, 2022 recording
• Last Updated: Oct 26, 2022 2:49 PM
• URL: https://guides.lib.utexas.edu/literaturereviews

• 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

• Privacy Policy

Buy Me a Coffee

Home » Historical Research – Types, Methods and Examples

Historical Research – Types, Methods and Examples

Table of Contents

Historical Research

Definition:

Historical research is the process of investigating and studying past events, people, and societies using a variety of sources and methods. This type of research aims to reconstruct and interpret the past based on the available evidence.

Types of Historical Research

There are several types of historical research, including:

Descriptive Research

This type of historical research focuses on describing events, people, or cultures in detail. It can involve examining artifacts, documents, or other sources of information to create a detailed account of what happened or existed.

Analytical Research

This type of historical research aims to explain why events, people, or cultures occurred in a certain way. It involves analyzing data to identify patterns, causes, and effects, and making interpretations based on this analysis.

Comparative Research

This type of historical research involves comparing two or more events, people, or cultures to identify similarities and differences. This can help researchers understand the unique characteristics of each and how they interacted with each other.

Interpretive Research

This type of historical research focuses on interpreting the meaning of past events, people, or cultures. It can involve analyzing cultural symbols, beliefs, and practices to understand their significance in a particular historical context.

Quantitative Research

This type of historical research involves using statistical methods to analyze historical data. It can involve examining demographic information, economic indicators, or other quantitative data to identify patterns and trends.

Qualitative Research

This type of historical research involves examining non-numerical data such as personal accounts, letters, or diaries. It can provide insights into the experiences and perspectives of individuals during a particular historical period.

Data Collection Methods

Data Collection Methods are as follows:

• Archival research : This involves analyzing documents and records that have been preserved over time, such as government records, diaries, letters, newspapers, and photographs. Archival research is often conducted in libraries, archives, and museums.
• Oral history : This involves conducting interviews with individuals who have lived through a particular historical period or event. Oral history can provide a unique perspective on past events and can help to fill gaps in the historical record.
• Artifact analysis: This involves examining physical objects from the past, such as tools, clothing, and artwork, to gain insights into past cultures and practices.
• Secondary sources: This involves analyzing published works, such as books, articles, and academic papers, that discuss past events and cultures. Secondary sources can provide context and insights into the historical period being studied.
• Statistical analysis : This involves analyzing numerical data from the past, such as census records or economic data, to identify patterns and trends.
• Fieldwork : This involves conducting on-site research in a particular location, such as visiting a historical site or conducting ethnographic research in a particular community. Fieldwork can provide a firsthand understanding of the culture and environment being studied.
• Content analysis: This involves analyzing the content of media from the past, such as films, television programs, and advertisements, to gain insights into cultural attitudes and beliefs.

Data Analysis Methods

• Content analysis : This involves analyzing the content of written or visual material, such as books, newspapers, or photographs, to identify patterns and themes. Content analysis can be used to identify changes in cultural values and beliefs over time.
• Textual analysis : This involves analyzing written texts, such as letters or diaries, to understand the experiences and perspectives of individuals during a particular historical period. Textual analysis can provide insights into how people lived and thought in the past.
• Discourse analysis : This involves analyzing how language is used to construct meaning and power relations in a particular historical period. Discourse analysis can help to identify how social and political ideologies were constructed and maintained over time.
• Statistical analysis: This involves using statistical methods to analyze numerical data, such as census records or economic data, to identify patterns and trends. Statistical analysis can help to identify changes in population demographics, economic conditions, and other factors over time.
• Comparative analysis : This involves comparing data from two or more historical periods or events to identify similarities and differences. Comparative analysis can help to identify patterns and trends that may not be apparent from analyzing data from a single historical period.
• Qualitative analysis: This involves analyzing non-numerical data, such as oral history interviews or ethnographic field notes, to identify themes and patterns. Qualitative analysis can provide a rich understanding of the experiences and perspectives of individuals in the past.

Historical Research Methodology

Here are the general steps involved in historical research methodology:

• Define the research question: Start by identifying a research question that you want to answer through your historical research. This question should be focused, specific, and relevant to your research goals.
• Review the literature: Conduct a review of the existing literature on the topic of your research question. This can involve reading books, articles, and academic papers to gain a thorough understanding of the existing research.
• Develop a research design : Develop a research design that outlines the methods you will use to collect and analyze data. This design should be based on the research question and should be feasible given the resources and time available.
• Collect data: Use the methods outlined in your research design to collect data on past events, people, and cultures. This can involve archival research, oral history interviews, artifact analysis, and other data collection methods.
• Analyze data : Analyze the data you have collected using the methods outlined in your research design. This can involve content analysis, textual analysis, statistical analysis, and other data analysis methods.
• Interpret findings : Use the results of your data analysis to draw meaningful insights and conclusions related to your research question. These insights should be grounded in the data and should be relevant to the research goals.
• Communicate results: Communicate your findings through a research report, academic paper, or other means. This should be done in a clear, concise, and well-organized manner, with appropriate citations and references to the literature.

Applications of Historical Research

Historical research has a wide range of applications in various fields, including:

• Education : Historical research can be used to develop curriculum materials that reflect a more accurate and inclusive representation of history. It can also be used to provide students with a deeper understanding of past events and cultures.
• Museums : Historical research is used to develop exhibits, programs, and other materials for museums. It can provide a more accurate and engaging presentation of historical events and artifacts.
• Public policy : Historical research is used to inform public policy decisions by providing insights into the historical context of current issues. It can also be used to evaluate the effectiveness of past policies and programs.
• Business : Historical research can be used by businesses to understand the evolution of their industry and to identify trends that may affect their future success. It can also be used to develop marketing strategies that resonate with customers’ historical interests and values.
• Law : Historical research is used in legal proceedings to provide evidence and context for cases involving historical events or practices. It can also be used to inform the development of new laws and policies.
• Genealogy : Historical research can be used by individuals to trace their family history and to understand their ancestral roots.
• Cultural preservation : Historical research is used to preserve cultural heritage by documenting and interpreting past events, practices, and traditions. It can also be used to identify and preserve historical landmarks and artifacts.

Examples of Historical Research

Examples of Historical Research are as follows:

• Examining the history of race relations in the United States: Historical research could be used to explore the historical roots of racial inequality and injustice in the United States. This could help inform current efforts to address systemic racism and promote social justice.
• Tracing the evolution of political ideologies: Historical research could be used to study the development of political ideologies over time. This could help to contextualize current political debates and provide insights into the origins and evolution of political beliefs and values.
• Analyzing the impact of technology on society : Historical research could be used to explore the impact of technology on society over time. This could include examining the impact of previous technological revolutions (such as the industrial revolution) on society, as well as studying the current impact of emerging technologies on society and the environment.
• Documenting the history of marginalized communities : Historical research could be used to document the history of marginalized communities (such as LGBTQ+ communities or indigenous communities). This could help to preserve cultural heritage, promote social justice, and promote a more inclusive understanding of history.

Purpose of Historical Research

The purpose of historical research is to study the past in order to gain a better understanding of the present and to inform future decision-making. Some specific purposes of historical research include:

• To understand the origins of current events, practices, and institutions : Historical research can be used to explore the historical roots of current events, practices, and institutions. By understanding how things developed over time, we can gain a better understanding of the present.
• To develop a more accurate and inclusive understanding of history : Historical research can be used to correct inaccuracies and biases in historical narratives. By exploring different perspectives and sources of information, we can develop a more complete and nuanced understanding of history.
• To inform decision-making: Historical research can be used to inform decision-making in various fields, including education, public policy, business, and law. By understanding the historical context of current issues, we can make more informed decisions about how to address them.
• To preserve cultural heritage : Historical research can be used to document and preserve cultural heritage, including traditions, practices, and artifacts. By understanding the historical significance of these cultural elements, we can work to preserve them for future generations.
• To stimulate curiosity and critical thinking: Historical research can be used to stimulate curiosity and critical thinking about the past. By exploring different historical perspectives and interpretations, we can develop a more critical and reflective approach to understanding history and its relevance to the present.

When to use Historical Research

Historical research can be useful in a variety of contexts. Here are some examples of when historical research might be particularly appropriate:

• When examining the historical roots of current events: Historical research can be used to explore the historical roots of current events, practices, and institutions. By understanding how things developed over time, we can gain a better understanding of the present.
• When examining the historical context of a particular topic : Historical research can be used to explore the historical context of a particular topic, such as a social issue, political debate, or scientific development. By understanding the historical context, we can gain a more nuanced understanding of the topic and its significance.
• When exploring the evolution of a particular field or discipline : Historical research can be used to explore the evolution of a particular field or discipline, such as medicine, law, or art. By understanding the historical development of the field, we can gain a better understanding of its current state and future directions.
• When examining the impact of past events on current society : Historical research can be used to examine the impact of past events (such as wars, revolutions, or social movements) on current society. By understanding the historical context and impact of these events, we can gain insights into current social and political issues.
• When studying the cultural heritage of a particular community or group : Historical research can be used to document and preserve the cultural heritage of a particular community or group. By understanding the historical significance of cultural practices, traditions, and artifacts, we can work to preserve them for future generations.

Characteristics of Historical Research

The following are some characteristics of historical research:

• Focus on the past : Historical research focuses on events, people, and phenomena of the past. It seeks to understand how things developed over time and how they relate to current events.
• Reliance on primary sources: Historical research relies on primary sources such as letters, diaries, newspapers, government documents, and other artifacts from the period being studied. These sources provide firsthand accounts of events and can help researchers gain a more accurate understanding of the past.
• Interpretation of data : Historical research involves interpretation of data from primary sources. Researchers analyze and interpret data to draw conclusions about the past.
• Use of multiple sources: Historical research often involves using multiple sources of data to gain a more complete understanding of the past. By examining a range of sources, researchers can cross-reference information and validate their findings.
• Importance of context: Historical research emphasizes the importance of context. Researchers analyze the historical context in which events occurred and consider how that context influenced people’s actions and decisions.
• Subjectivity : Historical research is inherently subjective, as researchers interpret data and draw conclusions based on their own perspectives and biases. Researchers must be aware of their own biases and strive for objectivity in their analysis.
• Importance of historical significance: Historical research emphasizes the importance of historical significance. Researchers consider the historical significance of events, people, and phenomena and their impact on the present and future.
• Use of qualitative methods : Historical research often uses qualitative methods such as content analysis, discourse analysis, and narrative analysis to analyze data and draw conclusions about the past.

Advantages of Historical Research

There are several advantages to historical research:

• Provides a deeper understanding of the past : Historical research can provide a more comprehensive understanding of past events and how they have shaped current social, political, and economic conditions. This can help individuals and organizations make informed decisions about the future.
• Helps preserve cultural heritage: Historical research can be used to document and preserve cultural heritage. By studying the history of a particular culture, researchers can gain insights into the cultural practices and beliefs that have shaped that culture over time.
• Provides insights into long-term trends : Historical research can provide insights into long-term trends and patterns. By studying historical data over time, researchers can identify patterns and trends that may be difficult to discern from short-term data.
• Facilitates the development of hypotheses: Historical research can facilitate the development of hypotheses about how past events have influenced current conditions. These hypotheses can be tested using other research methods, such as experiments or surveys.
• Helps identify root causes of social problems : Historical research can help identify the root causes of social problems. By studying the historical context in which these problems developed, researchers can gain a better understanding of how they emerged and what factors may have contributed to their development.
• Provides a source of inspiration: Historical research can provide a source of inspiration for individuals and organizations seeking to address current social, political, and economic challenges. By studying the accomplishments and struggles of past generations, researchers can gain insights into how to address current challenges.

Limitations of Historical Research

Some Limitations of Historical Research are as follows:

• Reliance on incomplete or biased data: Historical research is often limited by the availability and quality of data. Many primary sources have been lost, destroyed, or are inaccessible, making it difficult to get a complete picture of historical events. Additionally, some primary sources may be biased or represent only one perspective on an event.
• Difficulty in generalizing findings: Historical research is often specific to a particular time and place and may not be easily generalized to other contexts. This makes it difficult to draw broad conclusions about human behavior or social phenomena.
• Lack of control over variables : Historical research often lacks control over variables. Researchers cannot manipulate or control historical events, making it difficult to establish cause-and-effect relationships.
• Subjectivity of interpretation : Historical research is often subjective because researchers must interpret data and draw conclusions based on their own biases and perspectives. Different researchers may interpret the same data differently, leading to different conclusions.
• Limited ability to test hypotheses: Historical research is often limited in its ability to test hypotheses. Because the events being studied have already occurred, researchers cannot manipulate variables or conduct experiments to test their hypotheses.
• Lack of objectivity: Historical research is often subjective, and researchers must be aware of their own biases and strive for objectivity in their analysis. However, it can be difficult to maintain objectivity when studying events that are emotionally charged or controversial.
• Limited generalizability: Historical research is often limited in its generalizability, as the events and conditions being studied may be specific to a particular time and place. This makes it difficult to draw broad conclusions that apply to other contexts or time periods.

About the author

Muhammad Hassan

Researcher, Academic Writer, Web developer

You may also like

Documentary Research – Types, Methods and...

Scientific Research – Types, Purpose and Guide

Original Research – Definition, Examples, Guide

Humanities Research – Types, Methods and Examples

Artistic Research – Methods, Types and Examples

• USC Libraries
• Research Guides

Organizing Your Social Sciences Research Paper

• 5. The Literature Review
• Purpose of Guide
• Design Flaws to Avoid
• Independent and Dependent Variables
• Glossary of Research Terms
• Reading Research Effectively
• Narrowing a Topic Idea
• Broadening a Topic Idea
• Extending the Timeliness of a Topic Idea
• Academic Writing Style
• Applying Critical Thinking
• Choosing a Title
• Making an Outline
• Paragraph Development
• Research Process Video Series
• Executive Summary
• The C.A.R.S. Model
• Background Information
• The Research Problem/Question
• Theoretical Framework
• Citation Tracking
• Content Alert Services
• Evaluating Sources
• Primary Sources
• Secondary Sources
• Tiertiary Sources
• Scholarly vs. Popular Publications
• Qualitative Methods
• Quantitative Methods
• Insiderness
• Using Non-Textual Elements
• Limitations of the Study
• Common Grammar Mistakes
• Writing Concisely
• Avoiding Plagiarism
• Footnotes or Endnotes?
• Further Readings
• Generative AI and Writing
• USC Libraries Tutorials and Other Guides
• Bibliography

A literature review surveys prior research published in books, scholarly articles, and any other sources relevant to a particular issue, area of research, or theory, and by so doing, provides a description, summary, and critical evaluation of these works in relation to the research problem being investigated. Literature reviews are designed to provide an overview of sources you have used in researching a particular topic and to demonstrate to your readers how your research fits within existing scholarship about the topic.

Fink, Arlene. Conducting Research Literature Reviews: From the Internet to Paper . Fourth edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, 2014.

Importance of a Good Literature Review

A literature review may consist of simply a summary of key sources, but in the social sciences, a literature review usually has an organizational pattern and combines both summary and synthesis, often within specific conceptual categories . A summary is a recap of the important information of the source, but a synthesis is a re-organization, or a reshuffling, of that information in a way that informs how you are planning to investigate a research problem. The analytical features of a literature review might:

• Give a new interpretation of old material or combine new with old interpretations,
• Trace the intellectual progression of the field, including major debates,
• Depending on the situation, evaluate the sources and advise the reader on the most pertinent or relevant research, or
• Usually in the conclusion of a literature review, identify where gaps exist in how a problem has been researched to date.

Given this, the purpose of a literature review is to:

• Place each work in the context of its contribution to understanding the research problem being studied.
• Describe the relationship of each work to the others under consideration.
• Identify new ways to interpret prior research.
• Reveal any gaps that exist in the literature.
• Resolve conflicts amongst seemingly contradictory previous studies.
• Identify areas of prior scholarship to prevent duplication of effort.
• Point the way in fulfilling a need for additional research.
• Locate your own research within the context of existing literature [very important].

Fink, Arlene. Conducting Research Literature Reviews: From the Internet to Paper. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2005; Hart, Chris. Doing a Literature Review: Releasing the Social Science Research Imagination . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1998; Jesson, Jill. Doing Your Literature Review: Traditional and Systematic Techniques . Los Angeles, CA: SAGE, 2011; Knopf, Jeffrey W. "Doing a Literature Review." PS: Political Science and Politics 39 (January 2006): 127-132; Ridley, Diana. The Literature Review: A Step-by-Step Guide for Students . 2nd ed. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE, 2012.

Types of Literature Reviews

It is important to think of knowledge in a given field as consisting of three layers. First, there are the primary studies that researchers conduct and publish. Second are the reviews of those studies that summarize and offer new interpretations built from and often extending beyond the primary studies. Third, there are the perceptions, conclusions, opinion, and interpretations that are shared informally among scholars that become part of the body of epistemological traditions within the field.

In composing a literature review, it is important to note that it is often this third layer of knowledge that is cited as "true" even though it often has only a loose relationship to the primary studies and secondary literature reviews. Given this, while literature reviews are designed to provide an overview and synthesis of pertinent sources you have explored, there are a number of approaches you could adopt depending upon the type of analysis underpinning your study.

Argumentative Review This form examines literature selectively in order to support or refute an argument, deeply embedded assumption, or philosophical problem already established in the literature. The purpose is to develop a body of literature that establishes a contrarian viewpoint. Given the value-laden nature of some social science research [e.g., educational reform; immigration control], argumentative approaches to analyzing the literature can be a legitimate and important form of discourse. However, note that they can also introduce problems of bias when they are used to make summary claims of the sort found in systematic reviews [see below].

Integrative Review Considered a form of research that reviews, critiques, and synthesizes representative literature on a topic in an integrated way such that new frameworks and perspectives on the topic are generated. The body of literature includes all studies that address related or identical hypotheses or research problems. A well-done integrative review meets the same standards as primary research in regard to clarity, rigor, and replication. This is the most common form of review in the social sciences.

Historical Review Few things rest in isolation from historical precedent. Historical literature reviews focus on examining research throughout a period of time, often starting with the first time an issue, concept, theory, phenomena emerged in the literature, then tracing its evolution within the scholarship of a discipline. The purpose is to place research in a historical context to show familiarity with state-of-the-art developments and to identify the likely directions for future research.

Methodological Review A review does not always focus on what someone said [findings], but how they came about saying what they say [method of analysis]. Reviewing methods of analysis provides a framework of understanding at different levels [i.e. those of theory, substantive fields, research approaches, and data collection and analysis techniques], how researchers draw upon a wide variety of knowledge ranging from the conceptual level to practical documents for use in fieldwork in the areas of ontological and epistemological consideration, quantitative and qualitative integration, sampling, interviewing, data collection, and data analysis. This approach helps highlight ethical issues which you should be aware of and consider as you go through your own study.

Systematic Review This form consists of an overview of existing evidence pertinent to a clearly formulated research question, which uses pre-specified and standardized methods to identify and critically appraise relevant research, and to collect, report, and analyze data from the studies that are included in the review. The goal is to deliberately document, critically evaluate, and summarize scientifically all of the research about a clearly defined research problem . Typically it focuses on a very specific empirical question, often posed in a cause-and-effect form, such as "To what extent does A contribute to B?" This type of literature review is primarily applied to examining prior research studies in clinical medicine and allied health fields, but it is increasingly being used in the social sciences.

Theoretical Review The purpose of this form is to examine the corpus of theory that has accumulated in regard to an issue, concept, theory, phenomena. The theoretical literature review helps to establish what theories already exist, the relationships between them, to what degree the existing theories have been investigated, and to develop new hypotheses to be tested. Often this form is used to help establish a lack of appropriate theories or reveal that current theories are inadequate for explaining new or emerging research problems. The unit of analysis can focus on a theoretical concept or a whole theory or framework.

NOTE : Most often the literature review will incorporate some combination of types. For example, a review that examines literature supporting or refuting an argument, assumption, or philosophical problem related to the research problem will also need to include writing supported by sources that establish the history of these arguments in the literature.

Baumeister, Roy F. and Mark R. Leary. "Writing Narrative Literature Reviews."  Review of General Psychology 1 (September 1997): 311-320; Mark R. Fink, Arlene. Conducting Research Literature Reviews: From the Internet to Paper . 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2005; Hart, Chris. Doing a Literature Review: Releasing the Social Science Research Imagination . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1998; Kennedy, Mary M. "Defining a Literature." Educational Researcher 36 (April 2007): 139-147; Petticrew, Mark and Helen Roberts. Systematic Reviews in the Social Sciences: A Practical Guide . Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers, 2006; Torracro, Richard. "Writing Integrative Literature Reviews: Guidelines and Examples." Human Resource Development Review 4 (September 2005): 356-367; Rocco, Tonette S. and Maria S. Plakhotnik. "Literature Reviews, Conceptual Frameworks, and Theoretical Frameworks: Terms, Functions, and Distinctions." Human Ressource Development Review 8 (March 2008): 120-130; Sutton, Anthea. Systematic Approaches to a Successful Literature Review . Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications, 2016.

Structure and Writing Style

I.  Thinking About Your Literature Review

The structure of a literature review should include the following in support of understanding the research problem :

• An overview of the subject, issue, or theory under consideration, along with the objectives of the literature review,
• Division of works under review into themes or categories [e.g. works that support a particular position, those against, and those offering alternative approaches entirely],
• An explanation of how each work is similar to and how it varies from the others,
• Conclusions as to which pieces are best considered in their argument, are most convincing of their opinions, and make the greatest contribution to the understanding and development of their area of research.

The critical evaluation of each work should consider :

• Provenance -- what are the author's credentials? Are the author's arguments supported by evidence [e.g. primary historical material, case studies, narratives, statistics, recent scientific findings]?
• Methodology -- were the techniques used to identify, gather, and analyze the data appropriate to addressing the research problem? Was the sample size appropriate? Were the results effectively interpreted and reported?
• Objectivity -- is the author's perspective even-handed or prejudicial? Is contrary data considered or is certain pertinent information ignored to prove the author's point?
• Persuasiveness -- which of the author's theses are most convincing or least convincing?
• Validity -- are the author's arguments and conclusions convincing? Does the work ultimately contribute in any significant way to an understanding of the subject?

II.  Development of the Literature Review

Four Basic Stages of Writing 1.  Problem formulation -- which topic or field is being examined and what are its component issues? 2.  Literature search -- finding materials relevant to the subject being explored. 3.  Data evaluation -- determining which literature makes a significant contribution to the understanding of the topic. 4.  Analysis and interpretation -- discussing the findings and conclusions of pertinent literature.

Consider the following issues before writing the literature review: Clarify If your assignment is not specific about what form your literature review should take, seek clarification from your professor by asking these questions: 1.  Roughly how many sources would be appropriate to include? 2.  What types of sources should I review (books, journal articles, websites; scholarly versus popular sources)? 3.  Should I summarize, synthesize, or critique sources by discussing a common theme or issue? 4.  Should I evaluate the sources in any way beyond evaluating how they relate to understanding the research problem? 5.  Should I provide subheadings and other background information, such as definitions and/or a history? Find Models Use the exercise of reviewing the literature to examine how authors in your discipline or area of interest have composed their literature review sections. Read them to get a sense of the types of themes you might want to look for in your own research or to identify ways to organize your final review. The bibliography or reference section of sources you've already read, such as required readings in the course syllabus, are also excellent entry points into your own research. Narrow the Topic The narrower your topic, the easier it will be to limit the number of sources you need to read in order to obtain a good survey of relevant resources. Your professor will probably not expect you to read everything that's available about the topic, but you'll make the act of reviewing easier if you first limit scope of the research problem. A good strategy is to begin by searching the USC Libraries Catalog for recent books about the topic and review the table of contents for chapters that focuses on specific issues. You can also review the indexes of books to find references to specific issues that can serve as the focus of your research. For example, a book surveying the history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict may include a chapter on the role Egypt has played in mediating the conflict, or look in the index for the pages where Egypt is mentioned in the text. Consider Whether Your Sources are Current Some disciplines require that you use information that is as current as possible. This is particularly true in disciplines in medicine and the sciences where research conducted becomes obsolete very quickly as new discoveries are made. However, when writing a review in the social sciences, a survey of the history of the literature may be required. In other words, a complete understanding the research problem requires you to deliberately examine how knowledge and perspectives have changed over time. Sort through other current bibliographies or literature reviews in the field to get a sense of what your discipline expects. You can also use this method to explore what is considered by scholars to be a "hot topic" and what is not.

III.  Ways to Organize Your Literature Review

Chronology of Events If your review follows the chronological method, you could write about the materials according to when they were published. This approach should only be followed if a clear path of research building on previous research can be identified and that these trends follow a clear chronological order of development. For example, a literature review that focuses on continuing research about the emergence of German economic power after the fall of the Soviet Union. By Publication Order your sources by publication chronology, then, only if the order demonstrates a more important trend. For instance, you could order a review of literature on environmental studies of brown fields if the progression revealed, for example, a change in the soil collection practices of the researchers who wrote and/or conducted the studies. Thematic [“conceptual categories”] A thematic literature review is the most common approach to summarizing prior research in the social and behavioral sciences. Thematic reviews are organized around a topic or issue, rather than the progression of time, although the progression of time may still be incorporated into a thematic review. For example, a review of the Internet’s impact on American presidential politics could focus on the development of online political satire. While the study focuses on one topic, the Internet’s impact on American presidential politics, it would still be organized chronologically reflecting technological developments in media. The difference in this example between a "chronological" and a "thematic" approach is what is emphasized the most: themes related to the role of the Internet in presidential politics. Note that more authentic thematic reviews tend to break away from chronological order. A review organized in this manner would shift between time periods within each section according to the point being made. Methodological A methodological approach focuses on the methods utilized by the researcher. For the Internet in American presidential politics project, one methodological approach would be to look at cultural differences between the portrayal of American presidents on American, British, and French websites. Or the review might focus on the fundraising impact of the Internet on a particular political party. A methodological scope will influence either the types of documents in the review or the way in which these documents are discussed.

Other Sections of Your Literature Review Once you've decided on the organizational method for your literature review, the sections you need to include in the paper should be easy to figure out because they arise from your organizational strategy. In other words, a chronological review would have subsections for each vital time period; a thematic review would have subtopics based upon factors that relate to the theme or issue. However, sometimes you may need to add additional sections that are necessary for your study, but do not fit in the organizational strategy of the body. What other sections you include in the body is up to you. However, only include what is necessary for the reader to locate your study within the larger scholarship about the research problem.

Here are examples of other sections, usually in the form of a single paragraph, you may need to include depending on the type of review you write:

• Current Situation : Information necessary to understand the current topic or focus of the literature review.
• Sources Used : Describes the methods and resources [e.g., databases] you used to identify the literature you reviewed.
• History : The chronological progression of the field, the research literature, or an idea that is necessary to understand the literature review, if the body of the literature review is not already a chronology.
• Selection Methods : Criteria you used to select (and perhaps exclude) sources in your literature review. For instance, you might explain that your review includes only peer-reviewed [i.e., scholarly] sources.
• Standards : Description of the way in which you present your information.
• Questions for Further Research : What questions about the field has the review sparked? How will you further your research as a result of the review?

IV.  Writing Your Literature Review

Once you've settled on how to organize your literature review, you're ready to write each section. When writing your review, keep in mind these issues.

Use Evidence A literature review section is, in this sense, just like any other academic research paper. Your interpretation of the available sources must be backed up with evidence [citations] that demonstrates that what you are saying is valid. Be Selective Select only the most important points in each source to highlight in the review. The type of information you choose to mention should relate directly to the research problem, whether it is thematic, methodological, or chronological. Related items that provide additional information, but that are not key to understanding the research problem, can be included in a list of further readings . Use Quotes Sparingly Some short quotes are appropriate if you want to emphasize a point, or if what an author stated cannot be easily paraphrased. Sometimes you may need to quote certain terminology that was coined by the author, is not common knowledge, or taken directly from the study. Do not use extensive quotes as a substitute for using your own words in reviewing the literature. Summarize and Synthesize Remember to summarize and synthesize your sources within each thematic paragraph as well as throughout the review. Recapitulate important features of a research study, but then synthesize it by rephrasing the study's significance and relating it to your own work and the work of others. Keep Your Own Voice While the literature review presents others' ideas, your voice [the writer's] should remain front and center. For example, weave references to other sources into what you are writing but maintain your own voice by starting and ending the paragraph with your own ideas and wording. Use Caution When Paraphrasing When paraphrasing a source that is not your own, be sure to represent the author's information or opinions accurately and in your own words. Even when paraphrasing an author’s work, you still must provide a citation to that work.

V.  Common Mistakes to Avoid

These are the most common mistakes made in reviewing social science research literature.

• Sources in your literature review do not clearly relate to the research problem;
• You do not take sufficient time to define and identify the most relevant sources to use in the literature review related to the research problem;
• Relies exclusively on secondary analytical sources rather than including relevant primary research studies or data;
• Uncritically accepts another researcher's findings and interpretations as valid, rather than examining critically all aspects of the research design and analysis;
• Does not describe the search procedures that were used in identifying the literature to review;
• Reports isolated statistical results rather than synthesizing them in chi-squared or meta-analytic methods; and,
• Only includes research that validates assumptions and does not consider contrary findings and alternative interpretations found in the literature.

Cook, Kathleen E. and Elise Murowchick. “Do Literature Review Skills Transfer from One Course to Another?” Psychology Learning and Teaching 13 (March 2014): 3-11; Fink, Arlene. Conducting Research Literature Reviews: From the Internet to Paper . 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2005; Hart, Chris. Doing a Literature Review: Releasing the Social Science Research Imagination . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1998; Jesson, Jill. Doing Your Literature Review: Traditional and Systematic Techniques . London: SAGE, 2011; Literature Review Handout. Online Writing Center. Liberty University; Literature Reviews. The Writing Center. University of North Carolina; Onwuegbuzie, Anthony J. and Rebecca Frels. Seven Steps to a Comprehensive Literature Review: A Multimodal and Cultural Approach . Los Angeles, CA: SAGE, 2016; Ridley, Diana. The Literature Review: A Step-by-Step Guide for Students . 2nd ed. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE, 2012; Randolph, Justus J. “A Guide to Writing the Dissertation Literature Review." Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation. vol. 14, June 2009; Sutton, Anthea. Systematic Approaches to a Successful Literature Review . Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications, 2016; Taylor, Dena. The Literature Review: A Few Tips On Conducting It. University College Writing Centre. University of Toronto; Writing a Literature Review. Academic Skills Centre. University of Canberra.

Writing Tip

Break Out of Your Disciplinary Box!

Thinking interdisciplinarily about a research problem can be a rewarding exercise in applying new ideas, theories, or concepts to an old problem. For example, what might cultural anthropologists say about the continuing conflict in the Middle East? In what ways might geographers view the need for better distribution of social service agencies in large cities than how social workers might study the issue? You don’t want to substitute a thorough review of core research literature in your discipline for studies conducted in other fields of study. However, particularly in the social sciences, thinking about research problems from multiple vectors is a key strategy for finding new solutions to a problem or gaining a new perspective. Consult with a librarian about identifying research databases in other disciplines; almost every field of study has at least one comprehensive database devoted to indexing its research literature.

Frodeman, Robert. The Oxford Handbook of Interdisciplinarity . New York: Oxford University Press, 2010.

Another Writing Tip

Don't Just Review for Content!

While conducting a review of the literature, maximize the time you devote to writing this part of your paper by thinking broadly about what you should be looking for and evaluating. Review not just what scholars are saying, but how are they saying it. Some questions to ask:

• How are they organizing their ideas?
• What methods have they used to study the problem?
• What theories have been used to explain, predict, or understand their research problem?
• What sources have they cited to support their conclusions?
• How have they used non-textual elements [e.g., charts, graphs, figures, etc.] to illustrate key points?

When you begin to write your literature review section, you'll be glad you dug deeper into how the research was designed and constructed because it establishes a means for developing more substantial analysis and interpretation of the research problem.

Hart, Chris. Doing a Literature Review: Releasing the Social Science Research Imagination . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1 998.

Yet Another Writing Tip

When Do I Know I Can Stop Looking and Move On?

Here are several strategies you can utilize to assess whether you've thoroughly reviewed the literature:

• Look for repeating patterns in the research findings . If the same thing is being said, just by different people, then this likely demonstrates that the research problem has hit a conceptual dead end. At this point consider: Does your study extend current research?  Does it forge a new path? Or, does is merely add more of the same thing being said?
• Look at sources the authors cite to in their work . If you begin to see the same researchers cited again and again, then this is often an indication that no new ideas have been generated to address the research problem.
• Search Google Scholar to identify who has subsequently cited leading scholars already identified in your literature review [see next sub-tab]. This is called citation tracking and there are a number of sources that can help you identify who has cited whom, particularly scholars from outside of your discipline. Here again, if the same authors are being cited again and again, this may indicate no new literature has been written on the topic.

Onwuegbuzie, Anthony J. and Rebecca Frels. Seven Steps to a Comprehensive Literature Review: A Multimodal and Cultural Approach . Los Angeles, CA: Sage, 2016; Sutton, Anthea. Systematic Approaches to a Successful Literature Review . Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications, 2016.

• << Previous: Theoretical Framework
• Next: Citation Tracking >>
• Last Updated: Apr 22, 2024 9:12 AM
• URL: https://libguides.usc.edu/writingguide

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: 
• 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  

• 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. 
• 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. 
• 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. 
• 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. 
• 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. 
• 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. 

How to write a good literature review

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. 

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. 

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 literature review is an ongoing process, and it may be necessary to revisit and update it as your research progresses. 

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 
• Life Sciences Papers: 9 Tips for Authors Writing in Biological Sciences
• What is an Argumentative Essay? How to Write It (With Examples)

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, what is academic writing: tips for students, why traditional editorial process needs an upgrade, paperpal’s new ai research finder empowers authors to..., what is hedging in academic writing  , how to use ai to enhance your college..., ai + human expertise – a paradigm shift..., how to use paperpal to generate emails &..., ai in education: it’s time to change the..., is it ethical to use ai-generated abstracts without..., do plagiarism checkers detect ai content.

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
• Browse Titles

NCBI Bookshelf. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.

Lau F, Kuziemsky C, editors. Handbook of eHealth Evaluation: An Evidence-based Approach [Internet]. Victoria (BC): University of Victoria; 2017 Feb 27.

Handbook of eHealth Evaluation: An Evidence-based Approach [Internet].

Chapter 9 methods for literature reviews.

Guy Paré and Spyros Kitsiou .

9.1. Introduction

Literature reviews play a critical role in scholarship because science remains, first and foremost, a cumulative endeavour ( vom Brocke et al., 2009 ). As in any academic discipline, rigorous knowledge syntheses are becoming indispensable in keeping up with an exponentially growing eHealth literature, assisting practitioners, academics, and graduate students in finding, evaluating, and synthesizing the contents of many empirical and conceptual papers. Among other methods, literature reviews are essential for: (a) identifying what has been written on a subject or topic; (b) determining the extent to which a specific research area reveals any interpretable trends or patterns; (c) aggregating empirical findings related to a narrow research question to support evidence-based practice; (d) generating new frameworks and theories; and (e) identifying topics or questions requiring more investigation ( Paré, Trudel, Jaana, & Kitsiou, 2015 ).

Literature reviews can take two major forms. The most prevalent one is the “literature review” or “background” section within a journal paper or a chapter in a graduate thesis. This section synthesizes the extant literature and usually identifies the gaps in knowledge that the empirical study addresses ( Sylvester, Tate, & Johnstone, 2013 ). It may also provide a theoretical foundation for the proposed study, substantiate the presence of the research problem, justify the research as one that contributes something new to the cumulated knowledge, or validate the methods and approaches for the proposed study ( Hart, 1998 ; Levy & Ellis, 2006 ).

The second form of literature review, which is the focus of this chapter, constitutes an original and valuable work of research in and of itself ( Paré et al., 2015 ). Rather than providing a base for a researcher’s own work, it creates a solid starting point for all members of the community interested in a particular area or topic ( Mulrow, 1987 ). The so-called “review article” is a journal-length paper which has an overarching purpose to synthesize the literature in a field, without collecting or analyzing any primary data ( Green, Johnson, & Adams, 2006 ).

When appropriately conducted, review articles represent powerful information sources for practitioners looking for state-of-the art evidence to guide their decision-making and work practices ( Paré et al., 2015 ). Further, high-quality reviews become frequently cited pieces of work which researchers seek out as a first clear outline of the literature when undertaking empirical studies ( Cooper, 1988 ; Rowe, 2014 ). Scholars who track and gauge the impact of articles have found that review papers are cited and downloaded more often than any other type of published article ( Cronin, Ryan, & Coughlan, 2008 ; Montori, Wilczynski, Morgan, Haynes, & Hedges, 2003 ; Patsopoulos, Analatos, & Ioannidis, 2005 ). The reason for their popularity may be the fact that reading the review enables one to have an overview, if not a detailed knowledge of the area in question, as well as references to the most useful primary sources ( Cronin et al., 2008 ). Although they are not easy to conduct, the commitment to complete a review article provides a tremendous service to one’s academic community ( Paré et al., 2015 ; Petticrew & Roberts, 2006 ). Most, if not all, peer-reviewed journals in the fields of medical informatics publish review articles of some type.

The main objectives of this chapter are fourfold: (a) to provide an overview of the major steps and activities involved in conducting a stand-alone literature review; (b) to describe and contrast the different types of review articles that can contribute to the eHealth knowledge base; (c) to illustrate each review type with one or two examples from the eHealth literature; and (d) to provide a series of recommendations for prospective authors of review articles in this domain.

9.2. Overview of the Literature Review Process and Steps

As explained in Templier and Paré (2015) , there are six generic steps involved in conducting a review article:

• formulating the research question(s) and objective(s),
• searching the extant literature,
• screening for inclusion,
• assessing the quality of primary studies,
• extracting data, and
• analyzing data.

Although these steps are presented here in sequential order, one must keep in mind that the review process can be iterative and that many activities can be initiated during the planning stage and later refined during subsequent phases ( Finfgeld-Connett & Johnson, 2013 ; Kitchenham & Charters, 2007 ).

Formulating the research question(s) and objective(s): As a first step, members of the review team must appropriately justify the need for the review itself ( Petticrew & Roberts, 2006 ), identify the review’s main objective(s) ( Okoli & Schabram, 2010 ), and define the concepts or variables at the heart of their synthesis ( Cooper & Hedges, 2009 ; Webster & Watson, 2002 ). Importantly, they also need to articulate the research question(s) they propose to investigate ( Kitchenham & Charters, 2007 ). In this regard, we concur with Jesson, Matheson, and Lacey (2011) that clearly articulated research questions are key ingredients that guide the entire review methodology; they underscore the type of information that is needed, inform the search for and selection of relevant literature, and guide or orient the subsequent analysis. Searching the extant literature: The next step consists of searching the literature and making decisions about the suitability of material to be considered in the review ( Cooper, 1988 ). There exist three main coverage strategies. First, exhaustive coverage means an effort is made to be as comprehensive as possible in order to ensure that all relevant studies, published and unpublished, are included in the review and, thus, conclusions are based on this all-inclusive knowledge base. The second type of coverage consists of presenting materials that are representative of most other works in a given field or area. Often authors who adopt this strategy will search for relevant articles in a small number of top-tier journals in a field ( Paré et al., 2015 ). In the third strategy, the review team concentrates on prior works that have been central or pivotal to a particular topic. This may include empirical studies or conceptual papers that initiated a line of investigation, changed how problems or questions were framed, introduced new methods or concepts, or engendered important debate ( Cooper, 1988 ). Screening for inclusion: The following step consists of evaluating the applicability of the material identified in the preceding step ( Levy & Ellis, 2006 ; vom Brocke et al., 2009 ). Once a group of potential studies has been identified, members of the review team must screen them to determine their relevance ( Petticrew & Roberts, 2006 ). A set of predetermined rules provides a basis for including or excluding certain studies. This exercise requires a significant investment on the part of researchers, who must ensure enhanced objectivity and avoid biases or mistakes. As discussed later in this chapter, for certain types of reviews there must be at least two independent reviewers involved in the screening process and a procedure to resolve disagreements must also be in place ( Liberati et al., 2009 ; Shea et al., 2009 ). Assessing the quality of primary studies: In addition to screening material for inclusion, members of the review team may need to assess the scientific quality of the selected studies, that is, appraise the rigour of the research design and methods. Such formal assessment, which is usually conducted independently by at least two coders, helps members of the review team refine which studies to include in the final sample, determine whether or not the differences in quality may affect their conclusions, or guide how they analyze the data and interpret the findings ( Petticrew & Roberts, 2006 ). Ascribing quality scores to each primary study or considering through domain-based evaluations which study components have or have not been designed and executed appropriately makes it possible to reflect on the extent to which the selected study addresses possible biases and maximizes validity ( Shea et al., 2009 ). Extracting data: The following step involves gathering or extracting applicable information from each primary study included in the sample and deciding what is relevant to the problem of interest ( Cooper & Hedges, 2009 ). Indeed, the type of data that should be recorded mainly depends on the initial research questions ( Okoli & Schabram, 2010 ). However, important information may also be gathered about how, when, where and by whom the primary study was conducted, the research design and methods, or qualitative/quantitative results ( Cooper & Hedges, 2009 ). Analyzing and synthesizing data : As a final step, members of the review team must collate, summarize, aggregate, organize, and compare the evidence extracted from the included studies. The extracted data must be presented in a meaningful way that suggests a new contribution to the extant literature ( Jesson et al., 2011 ). Webster and Watson (2002) warn researchers that literature reviews should be much more than lists of papers and should provide a coherent lens to make sense of extant knowledge on a given topic. There exist several methods and techniques for synthesizing quantitative (e.g., frequency analysis, meta-analysis) and qualitative (e.g., grounded theory, narrative analysis, meta-ethnography) evidence ( Dixon-Woods, Agarwal, Jones, Young, & Sutton, 2005 ; Thomas & Harden, 2008 ).

9.3. Types of Review Articles and Brief Illustrations

EHealth researchers have at their disposal a number of approaches and methods for making sense out of existing literature, all with the purpose of casting current research findings into historical contexts or explaining contradictions that might exist among a set of primary research studies conducted on a particular topic. Our classification scheme is largely inspired from Paré and colleagues’ (2015) typology. Below we present and illustrate those review types that we feel are central to the growth and development of the eHealth domain.

9.3.1. Narrative Reviews

The narrative review is the “traditional” way of reviewing the extant literature and is skewed towards a qualitative interpretation of prior knowledge ( Sylvester et al., 2013 ). Put simply, a narrative review attempts to summarize or synthesize what has been written on a particular topic but does not seek generalization or cumulative knowledge from what is reviewed ( Davies, 2000 ; Green et al., 2006 ). Instead, the review team often undertakes the task of accumulating and synthesizing the literature to demonstrate the value of a particular point of view ( Baumeister & Leary, 1997 ). As such, reviewers may selectively ignore or limit the attention paid to certain studies in order to make a point. In this rather unsystematic approach, the selection of information from primary articles is subjective, lacks explicit criteria for inclusion and can lead to biased interpretations or inferences ( Green et al., 2006 ). There are several narrative reviews in the particular eHealth domain, as in all fields, which follow such an unstructured approach ( Silva et al., 2015 ; Paul et al., 2015 ).

Despite these criticisms, this type of review can be very useful in gathering together a volume of literature in a specific subject area and synthesizing it. As mentioned above, its primary purpose is to provide the reader with a comprehensive background for understanding current knowledge and highlighting the significance of new research ( Cronin et al., 2008 ). Faculty like to use narrative reviews in the classroom because they are often more up to date than textbooks, provide a single source for students to reference, and expose students to peer-reviewed literature ( Green et al., 2006 ). For researchers, narrative reviews can inspire research ideas by identifying gaps or inconsistencies in a body of knowledge, thus helping researchers to determine research questions or formulate hypotheses. Importantly, narrative reviews can also be used as educational articles to bring practitioners up to date with certain topics of issues ( Green et al., 2006 ).

Recently, there have been several efforts to introduce more rigour in narrative reviews that will elucidate common pitfalls and bring changes into their publication standards. Information systems researchers, among others, have contributed to advancing knowledge on how to structure a “traditional” review. For instance, Levy and Ellis (2006) proposed a generic framework for conducting such reviews. Their model follows the systematic data processing approach comprised of three steps, namely: (a) literature search and screening; (b) data extraction and analysis; and (c) writing the literature review. They provide detailed and very helpful instructions on how to conduct each step of the review process. As another methodological contribution, vom Brocke et al. (2009) offered a series of guidelines for conducting literature reviews, with a particular focus on how to search and extract the relevant body of knowledge. Last, Bandara, Miskon, and Fielt (2011) proposed a structured, predefined and tool-supported method to identify primary studies within a feasible scope, extract relevant content from identified articles, synthesize and analyze the findings, and effectively write and present the results of the literature review. We highly recommend that prospective authors of narrative reviews consult these useful sources before embarking on their work.

Darlow and Wen (2015) provide a good example of a highly structured narrative review in the eHealth field. These authors synthesized published articles that describe the development process of mobile health ( m-health ) interventions for patients’ cancer care self-management. As in most narrative reviews, the scope of the research questions being investigated is broad: (a) how development of these systems are carried out; (b) which methods are used to investigate these systems; and (c) what conclusions can be drawn as a result of the development of these systems. To provide clear answers to these questions, a literature search was conducted on six electronic databases and Google Scholar . The search was performed using several terms and free text words, combining them in an appropriate manner. Four inclusion and three exclusion criteria were utilized during the screening process. Both authors independently reviewed each of the identified articles to determine eligibility and extract study information. A flow diagram shows the number of studies identified, screened, and included or excluded at each stage of study selection. In terms of contributions, this review provides a series of practical recommendations for m-health intervention development.

9.3.2. Descriptive or Mapping Reviews

The primary goal of a descriptive review is to determine the extent to which a body of knowledge in a particular research topic reveals any interpretable pattern or trend with respect to pre-existing propositions, theories, methodologies or findings ( King & He, 2005 ; Paré et al., 2015 ). In contrast with narrative reviews, descriptive reviews follow a systematic and transparent procedure, including searching, screening and classifying studies ( Petersen, Vakkalanka, & Kuzniarz, 2015 ). Indeed, structured search methods are used to form a representative sample of a larger group of published works ( Paré et al., 2015 ). Further, authors of descriptive reviews extract from each study certain characteristics of interest, such as publication year, research methods, data collection techniques, and direction or strength of research outcomes (e.g., positive, negative, or non-significant) in the form of frequency analysis to produce quantitative results ( Sylvester et al., 2013 ). In essence, each study included in a descriptive review is treated as the unit of analysis and the published literature as a whole provides a database from which the authors attempt to identify any interpretable trends or draw overall conclusions about the merits of existing conceptualizations, propositions, methods or findings ( Paré et al., 2015 ). In doing so, a descriptive review may claim that its findings represent the state of the art in a particular domain ( King & He, 2005 ).

In the fields of health sciences and medical informatics, reviews that focus on examining the range, nature and evolution of a topic area are described by Anderson, Allen, Peckham, and Goodwin (2008) as mapping reviews . Like descriptive reviews, the research questions are generic and usually relate to publication patterns and trends. There is no preconceived plan to systematically review all of the literature although this can be done. Instead, researchers often present studies that are representative of most works published in a particular area and they consider a specific time frame to be mapped.

An example of this approach in the eHealth domain is offered by DeShazo, Lavallie, and Wolf (2009). The purpose of this descriptive or mapping review was to characterize publication trends in the medical informatics literature over a 20-year period (1987 to 2006). To achieve this ambitious objective, the authors performed a bibliometric analysis of medical informatics citations indexed in medline using publication trends, journal frequencies, impact factors, Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) term frequencies, and characteristics of citations. Findings revealed that there were over 77,000 medical informatics articles published during the covered period in numerous journals and that the average annual growth rate was 12%. The MeSH term analysis also suggested a strong interdisciplinary trend. Finally, average impact scores increased over time with two notable growth periods. Overall, patterns in research outputs that seem to characterize the historic trends and current components of the field of medical informatics suggest it may be a maturing discipline (DeShazo et al., 2009).

9.3.3. Scoping Reviews

Scoping reviews attempt to provide an initial indication of the potential size and nature of the extant literature on an emergent topic (Arksey & O’Malley, 2005; Daudt, van Mossel, & Scott, 2013 ; Levac, Colquhoun, & O’Brien, 2010). A scoping review may be conducted to examine the extent, range and nature of research activities in a particular area, determine the value of undertaking a full systematic review (discussed next), or identify research gaps in the extant literature ( Paré et al., 2015 ). In line with their main objective, scoping reviews usually conclude with the presentation of a detailed research agenda for future works along with potential implications for both practice and research.

Unlike narrative and descriptive reviews, the whole point of scoping the field is to be as comprehensive as possible, including grey literature (Arksey & O’Malley, 2005). Inclusion and exclusion criteria must be established to help researchers eliminate studies that are not aligned with the research questions. It is also recommended that at least two independent coders review abstracts yielded from the search strategy and then the full articles for study selection ( Daudt et al., 2013 ). The synthesized evidence from content or thematic analysis is relatively easy to present in tabular form (Arksey & O’Malley, 2005; Thomas & Harden, 2008 ).

One of the most highly cited scoping reviews in the eHealth domain was published by Archer, Fevrier-Thomas, Lokker, McKibbon, and Straus (2011) . These authors reviewed the existing literature on personal health record ( phr ) systems including design, functionality, implementation, applications, outcomes, and benefits. Seven databases were searched from 1985 to March 2010. Several search terms relating to phr s were used during this process. Two authors independently screened titles and abstracts to determine inclusion status. A second screen of full-text articles, again by two independent members of the research team, ensured that the studies described phr s. All in all, 130 articles met the criteria and their data were extracted manually into a database. The authors concluded that although there is a large amount of survey, observational, cohort/panel, and anecdotal evidence of phr benefits and satisfaction for patients, more research is needed to evaluate the results of phr implementations. Their in-depth analysis of the literature signalled that there is little solid evidence from randomized controlled trials or other studies through the use of phr s. Hence, they suggested that more research is needed that addresses the current lack of understanding of optimal functionality and usability of these systems, and how they can play a beneficial role in supporting patient self-management ( Archer et al., 2011 ).

9.3.4. Forms of Aggregative Reviews

Healthcare providers, practitioners, and policy-makers are nowadays overwhelmed with large volumes of information, including research-based evidence from numerous clinical trials and evaluation studies, assessing the effectiveness of health information technologies and interventions ( Ammenwerth & de Keizer, 2004 ; Deshazo et al., 2009 ). It is unrealistic to expect that all these disparate actors will have the time, skills, and necessary resources to identify the available evidence in the area of their expertise and consider it when making decisions. Systematic reviews that involve the rigorous application of scientific strategies aimed at limiting subjectivity and bias (i.e., systematic and random errors) can respond to this challenge.

Systematic reviews attempt to aggregate, appraise, and synthesize in a single source all empirical evidence that meet a set of previously specified eligibility criteria in order to answer a clearly formulated and often narrow research question on a particular topic of interest to support evidence-based practice ( Liberati et al., 2009 ). They adhere closely to explicit scientific principles ( Liberati et al., 2009 ) and rigorous methodological guidelines (Higgins & Green, 2008) aimed at reducing random and systematic errors that can lead to deviations from the truth in results or inferences. The use of explicit methods allows systematic reviews to aggregate a large body of research evidence, assess whether effects or relationships are in the same direction and of the same general magnitude, explain possible inconsistencies between study results, and determine the strength of the overall evidence for every outcome of interest based on the quality of included studies and the general consistency among them ( Cook, Mulrow, & Haynes, 1997 ). The main procedures of a systematic review involve:

• Formulating a review question and developing a search strategy based on explicit inclusion criteria for the identification of eligible studies (usually described in the context of a detailed review protocol).
• Searching for eligible studies using multiple databases and information sources, including grey literature sources, without any language restrictions.
• Selecting studies, extracting data, and assessing risk of bias in a duplicate manner using two independent reviewers to avoid random or systematic errors in the process.
• Analyzing data using quantitative or qualitative methods.
• Presenting results in summary of findings tables.
• Interpreting results and drawing conclusions.

Many systematic reviews, but not all, use statistical methods to combine the results of independent studies into a single quantitative estimate or summary effect size. Known as meta-analyses , these reviews use specific data extraction and statistical techniques (e.g., network, frequentist, or Bayesian meta-analyses) to calculate from each study by outcome of interest an effect size along with a confidence interval that reflects the degree of uncertainty behind the point estimate of effect ( Borenstein, Hedges, Higgins, & Rothstein, 2009 ; Deeks, Higgins, & Altman, 2008 ). Subsequently, they use fixed or random-effects analysis models to combine the results of the included studies, assess statistical heterogeneity, and calculate a weighted average of the effect estimates from the different studies, taking into account their sample sizes. The summary effect size is a value that reflects the average magnitude of the intervention effect for a particular outcome of interest or, more generally, the strength of a relationship between two variables across all studies included in the systematic review. By statistically combining data from multiple studies, meta-analyses can create more precise and reliable estimates of intervention effects than those derived from individual studies alone, when these are examined independently as discrete sources of information.

The review by Gurol-Urganci, de Jongh, Vodopivec-Jamsek, Atun, and Car (2013) on the effects of mobile phone messaging reminders for attendance at healthcare appointments is an illustrative example of a high-quality systematic review with meta-analysis. Missed appointments are a major cause of inefficiency in healthcare delivery with substantial monetary costs to health systems. These authors sought to assess whether mobile phone-based appointment reminders delivered through Short Message Service ( sms ) or Multimedia Messaging Service ( mms ) are effective in improving rates of patient attendance and reducing overall costs. To this end, they conducted a comprehensive search on multiple databases using highly sensitive search strategies without language or publication-type restrictions to identify all rct s that are eligible for inclusion. In order to minimize the risk of omitting eligible studies not captured by the original search, they supplemented all electronic searches with manual screening of trial registers and references contained in the included studies. Study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessments were performed inde­­pen­dently by two coders using standardized methods to ensure consistency and to eliminate potential errors. Findings from eight rct s involving 6,615 participants were pooled into meta-analyses to calculate the magnitude of effects that mobile text message reminders have on the rate of attendance at healthcare appointments compared to no reminders and phone call reminders.

Meta-analyses are regarded as powerful tools for deriving meaningful conclusions. However, there are situations in which it is neither reasonable nor appropriate to pool studies together using meta-analytic methods simply because there is extensive clinical heterogeneity between the included studies or variation in measurement tools, comparisons, or outcomes of interest. In these cases, systematic reviews can use qualitative synthesis methods such as vote counting, content analysis, classification schemes and tabulations, as an alternative approach to narratively synthesize the results of the independent studies included in the review. This form of review is known as qualitative systematic review.

A rigorous example of one such review in the eHealth domain is presented by Mickan, Atherton, Roberts, Heneghan, and Tilson (2014) on the use of handheld computers by healthcare professionals and their impact on access to information and clinical decision-making. In line with the methodological guide­lines for systematic reviews, these authors: (a) developed and registered with prospero ( www.crd.york.ac.uk/ prospero / ) an a priori review protocol; (b) conducted comprehensive searches for eligible studies using multiple databases and other supplementary strategies (e.g., forward searches); and (c) subsequently carried out study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessments in a duplicate manner to eliminate potential errors in the review process. Heterogeneity between the included studies in terms of reported outcomes and measures precluded the use of meta-analytic methods. To this end, the authors resorted to using narrative analysis and synthesis to describe the effectiveness of handheld computers on accessing information for clinical knowledge, adherence to safety and clinical quality guidelines, and diagnostic decision-making.

In recent years, the number of systematic reviews in the field of health informatics has increased considerably. Systematic reviews with discordant findings can cause great confusion and make it difficult for decision-makers to interpret the review-level evidence ( Moher, 2013 ). Therefore, there is a growing need for appraisal and synthesis of prior systematic reviews to ensure that decision-making is constantly informed by the best available accumulated evidence. Umbrella reviews , also known as overviews of systematic reviews, are tertiary types of evidence synthesis that aim to accomplish this; that is, they aim to compare and contrast findings from multiple systematic reviews and meta-analyses ( Becker & Oxman, 2008 ). Umbrella reviews generally adhere to the same principles and rigorous methodological guidelines used in systematic reviews. However, the unit of analysis in umbrella reviews is the systematic review rather than the primary study ( Becker & Oxman, 2008 ). Unlike systematic reviews that have a narrow focus of inquiry, umbrella reviews focus on broader research topics for which there are several potential interventions ( Smith, Devane, Begley, & Clarke, 2011 ). A recent umbrella review on the effects of home telemonitoring interventions for patients with heart failure critically appraised, compared, and synthesized evidence from 15 systematic reviews to investigate which types of home telemonitoring technologies and forms of interventions are more effective in reducing mortality and hospital admissions ( Kitsiou, Paré, & Jaana, 2015 ).

9.3.5. Realist Reviews

Realist reviews are theory-driven interpretative reviews developed to inform, enhance, or supplement conventional systematic reviews by making sense of heterogeneous evidence about complex interventions applied in diverse contexts in a way that informs policy decision-making ( Greenhalgh, Wong, Westhorp, & Pawson, 2011 ). They originated from criticisms of positivist systematic reviews which centre on their “simplistic” underlying assumptions ( Oates, 2011 ). As explained above, systematic reviews seek to identify causation. Such logic is appropriate for fields like medicine and education where findings of randomized controlled trials can be aggregated to see whether a new treatment or intervention does improve outcomes. However, many argue that it is not possible to establish such direct causal links between interventions and outcomes in fields such as social policy, management, and information systems where for any intervention there is unlikely to be a regular or consistent outcome ( Oates, 2011 ; Pawson, 2006 ; Rousseau, Manning, & Denyer, 2008 ).

To circumvent these limitations, Pawson, Greenhalgh, Harvey, and Walshe (2005) have proposed a new approach for synthesizing knowledge that seeks to unpack the mechanism of how “complex interventions” work in particular contexts. The basic research question — what works? — which is usually associated with systematic reviews changes to: what is it about this intervention that works, for whom, in what circumstances, in what respects and why? Realist reviews have no particular preference for either quantitative or qualitative evidence. As a theory-building approach, a realist review usually starts by articulating likely underlying mechanisms and then scrutinizes available evidence to find out whether and where these mechanisms are applicable ( Shepperd et al., 2009 ). Primary studies found in the extant literature are viewed as case studies which can test and modify the initial theories ( Rousseau et al., 2008 ).

The main objective pursued in the realist review conducted by Otte-Trojel, de Bont, Rundall, and van de Klundert (2014) was to examine how patient portals contribute to health service delivery and patient outcomes. The specific goals were to investigate how outcomes are produced and, most importantly, how variations in outcomes can be explained. The research team started with an exploratory review of background documents and research studies to identify ways in which patient portals may contribute to health service delivery and patient outcomes. The authors identified six main ways which represent “educated guesses” to be tested against the data in the evaluation studies. These studies were identified through a formal and systematic search in four databases between 2003 and 2013. Two members of the research team selected the articles using a pre-established list of inclusion and exclusion criteria and following a two-step procedure. The authors then extracted data from the selected articles and created several tables, one for each outcome category. They organized information to bring forward those mechanisms where patient portals contribute to outcomes and the variation in outcomes across different contexts.

9.3.6. Critical Reviews

Lastly, critical reviews aim to provide a critical evaluation and interpretive analysis of existing literature on a particular topic of interest to reveal strengths, weaknesses, contradictions, controversies, inconsistencies, and/or other important issues with respect to theories, hypotheses, research methods or results ( Baumeister & Leary, 1997 ; Kirkevold, 1997 ). Unlike other review types, critical reviews attempt to take a reflective account of the research that has been done in a particular area of interest, and assess its credibility by using appraisal instruments or critical interpretive methods. In this way, critical reviews attempt to constructively inform other scholars about the weaknesses of prior research and strengthen knowledge development by giving focus and direction to studies for further improvement ( Kirkevold, 1997 ).

Kitsiou, Paré, and Jaana (2013) provide an example of a critical review that assessed the methodological quality of prior systematic reviews of home telemonitoring studies for chronic patients. The authors conducted a comprehensive search on multiple databases to identify eligible reviews and subsequently used a validated instrument to conduct an in-depth quality appraisal. Results indicate that the majority of systematic reviews in this particular area suffer from important methodological flaws and biases that impair their internal validity and limit their usefulness for clinical and decision-making purposes. To this end, they provide a number of recommendations to strengthen knowledge development towards improving the design and execution of future reviews on home telemonitoring.

9.4. Summary

Table 9.1 outlines the main types of literature reviews that were described in the previous sub-sections and summarizes the main characteristics that distinguish one review type from another. It also includes key references to methodological guidelines and useful sources that can be used by eHealth scholars and researchers for planning and developing reviews.

Typology of Literature Reviews (adapted from Paré et al., 2015).

As shown in Table 9.1 , each review type addresses different kinds of research questions or objectives, which subsequently define and dictate the methods and approaches that need to be used to achieve the overarching goal(s) of the review. For example, in the case of narrative reviews, there is greater flexibility in searching and synthesizing articles ( Green et al., 2006 ). Researchers are often relatively free to use a diversity of approaches to search, identify, and select relevant scientific articles, describe their operational characteristics, present how the individual studies fit together, and formulate conclusions. On the other hand, systematic reviews are characterized by their high level of systematicity, rigour, and use of explicit methods, based on an “a priori” review plan that aims to minimize bias in the analysis and synthesis process (Higgins & Green, 2008). Some reviews are exploratory in nature (e.g., scoping/mapping reviews), whereas others may be conducted to discover patterns (e.g., descriptive reviews) or involve a synthesis approach that may include the critical analysis of prior research ( Paré et al., 2015 ). Hence, in order to select the most appropriate type of review, it is critical to know before embarking on a review project, why the research synthesis is conducted and what type of methods are best aligned with the pursued goals.

9.5. Concluding Remarks

In light of the increased use of evidence-based practice and research generating stronger evidence ( Grady et al., 2011 ; Lyden et al., 2013 ), review articles have become essential tools for summarizing, synthesizing, integrating or critically appraising prior knowledge in the eHealth field. As mentioned earlier, when rigorously conducted review articles represent powerful information sources for eHealth scholars and practitioners looking for state-of-the-art evidence. The typology of literature reviews we used herein will allow eHealth researchers, graduate students and practitioners to gain a better understanding of the similarities and differences between review types.

We must stress that this classification scheme does not privilege any specific type of review as being of higher quality than another ( Paré et al., 2015 ). As explained above, each type of review has its own strengths and limitations. Having said that, we realize that the methodological rigour of any review — be it qualitative, quantitative or mixed — is a critical aspect that should be considered seriously by prospective authors. In the present context, the notion of rigour refers to the reliability and validity of the review process described in section 9.2. For one thing, reliability is related to the reproducibility of the review process and steps, which is facilitated by a comprehensive documentation of the literature search process, extraction, coding and analysis performed in the review. Whether the search is comprehensive or not, whether it involves a methodical approach for data extraction and synthesis or not, it is important that the review documents in an explicit and transparent manner the steps and approach that were used in the process of its development. Next, validity characterizes the degree to which the review process was conducted appropriately. It goes beyond documentation and reflects decisions related to the selection of the sources, the search terms used, the period of time covered, the articles selected in the search, and the application of backward and forward searches ( vom Brocke et al., 2009 ). In short, the rigour of any review article is reflected by the explicitness of its methods (i.e., transparency) and the soundness of the approach used. We refer those interested in the concepts of rigour and quality to the work of Templier and Paré (2015) which offers a detailed set of methodological guidelines for conducting and evaluating various types of review articles.

To conclude, our main objective in this chapter was to demystify the various types of literature reviews that are central to the continuous development of the eHealth field. It is our hope that our descriptive account will serve as a valuable source for those conducting, evaluating or using reviews in this important and growing domain.

• Ammenwerth E., de Keizer N. An inventory of evaluation studies of information technology in health care. Trends in evaluation research, 1982-2002. International Journal of Medical Informatics. 2004; 44 (1):44–56. [ PubMed : 15778794 ]
• Anderson S., Allen P., Peckham S., Goodwin N. Asking the right questions: scoping studies in the commissioning of research on the organisation and delivery of health services. Health Research Policy and Systems. 2008; 6 (7):1–12. [ PMC free article : PMC2500008 ] [ PubMed : 18613961 ] [ CrossRef ]
• Archer N., Fevrier-Thomas U., Lokker C., McKibbon K. A., Straus S.E. Personal health records: a scoping review. Journal of American Medical Informatics Association. 2011; 18 (4):515–522. [ PMC free article : PMC3128401 ] [ PubMed : 21672914 ]
• Arksey H., O’Malley L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology. 2005; 8 (1):19–32.
• A systematic, tool-supported method for conducting literature reviews in information systems. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 19th European Conference on Information Systems ( ecis 2011); June 9 to 11; Helsinki, Finland. 2011.
• Baumeister R. F., Leary M.R. Writing narrative literature reviews. Review of General Psychology. 1997; 1 (3):311–320.
• Becker L. A., Oxman A.D. In: Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Higgins J. P. T., Green S., editors. Hoboken, nj : John Wiley & Sons, Ltd; 2008. Overviews of reviews; pp. 607–631.
• Borenstein M., Hedges L., Higgins J., Rothstein H. Introduction to meta-analysis. Hoboken, nj : John Wiley & Sons Inc; 2009.
• Cook D. J., Mulrow C. D., Haynes B. Systematic reviews: Synthesis of best evidence for clinical decisions. Annals of Internal Medicine. 1997; 126 (5):376–380. [ PubMed : 9054282 ]
• Cooper H., Hedges L.V. In: The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis. 2nd ed. Cooper H., Hedges L. V., Valentine J. C., editors. New York: Russell Sage Foundation; 2009. Research synthesis as a scientific process; pp. 3–17.
• Cooper H. M. Organizing knowledge syntheses: A taxonomy of literature reviews. Knowledge in Society. 1988; 1 (1):104–126.
• Cronin P., Ryan F., Coughlan M. Undertaking a literature review: a step-by-step approach. British Journal of Nursing. 2008; 17 (1):38–43. [ PubMed : 18399395 ]
• Darlow S., Wen K.Y. Development testing of mobile health interventions for cancer patient self-management: A review. Health Informatics Journal. 2015 (online before print). [ PubMed : 25916831 ] [ CrossRef ]
• Daudt H. M., van Mossel C., Scott S.J. Enhancing the scoping study methodology: a large, inter-professional team’s experience with Arksey and O’Malley’s framework. bmc Medical Research Methodology. 2013; 13 :48. [ PMC free article : PMC3614526 ] [ PubMed : 23522333 ] [ CrossRef ]
• Davies P. The relevance of systematic reviews to educational policy and practice. Oxford Review of Education. 2000; 26 (3-4):365–378.
• Deeks J. J., Higgins J. P. T., Altman D.G. In: Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Higgins J. P. T., Green S., editors. Hoboken, nj : John Wiley & Sons, Ltd; 2008. Analysing data and undertaking meta-analyses; pp. 243–296.
• Deshazo J. P., Lavallie D. L., Wolf F.M. Publication trends in the medical informatics literature: 20 years of “Medical Informatics” in mesh . bmc Medical Informatics and Decision Making. 2009; 9 :7. [ PMC free article : PMC2652453 ] [ PubMed : 19159472 ] [ CrossRef ]
• Dixon-Woods M., Agarwal S., Jones D., Young B., Sutton A. Synthesising qualitative and quantitative evidence: a review of possible methods. Journal of Health Services Research and Policy. 2005; 10 (1):45–53. [ PubMed : 15667704 ]
• Finfgeld-Connett D., Johnson E.D. Literature search strategies for conducting knowledge-building and theory-generating qualitative systematic reviews. Journal of Advanced Nursing. 2013; 69 (1):194–204. [ PMC free article : PMC3424349 ] [ PubMed : 22591030 ]
• Grady B., Myers K. M., Nelson E. L., Belz N., Bennett L., Carnahan L. … Guidelines Working Group. Evidence-based practice for telemental health. Telemedicine Journal and E Health. 2011; 17 (2):131–148. [ PubMed : 21385026 ]
• Green B. N., Johnson C. D., Adams A. Writing narrative literature reviews for peer-reviewed journals: secrets of the trade. Journal of Chiropractic Medicine. 2006; 5 (3):101–117. [ PMC free article : PMC2647067 ] [ PubMed : 19674681 ]
• Greenhalgh T., Wong G., Westhorp G., Pawson R. Protocol–realist and meta-narrative evidence synthesis: evolving standards ( rameses ). bmc Medical Research Methodology. 2011; 11 :115. [ PMC free article : PMC3173389 ] [ PubMed : 21843376 ]
• Gurol-Urganci I., de Jongh T., Vodopivec-Jamsek V., Atun R., Car J. Mobile phone messaging reminders for attendance at healthcare appointments. Cochrane Database System Review. 2013; 12 cd 007458. [ PMC free article : PMC6485985 ] [ PubMed : 24310741 ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hart C. Doing a literature review: Releasing the social science research imagination. London: SAGE Publications; 1998.
• Higgins J. P. T., Green S., editors. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions: Cochrane book series. Hoboken, nj : Wiley-Blackwell; 2008.
• Jesson J., Matheson L., Lacey F.M. Doing your literature review: traditional and systematic techniques. Los Angeles & London: SAGE Publications; 2011.
• King W. R., He J. Understanding the role and methods of meta-analysis in IS research. Communications of the Association for Information Systems. 2005; 16 :1.
• Kirkevold M. Integrative nursing research — an important strategy to further the development of nursing science and nursing practice. Journal of Advanced Nursing. 1997; 25 (5):977–984. [ PubMed : 9147203 ]
• Kitchenham B., Charters S. ebse Technical Report Version 2.3. Keele & Durham. uk : Keele University & University of Durham; 2007. Guidelines for performing systematic literature reviews in software engineering.
• Kitsiou S., Paré G., Jaana M. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of home telemonitoring interventions for patients with chronic diseases: a critical assessment of their methodological quality. Journal of Medical Internet Research. 2013; 15 (7):e150. [ PMC free article : PMC3785977 ] [ PubMed : 23880072 ]
• Kitsiou S., Paré G., Jaana M. Effects of home telemonitoring interventions on patients with chronic heart failure: an overview of systematic reviews. Journal of Medical Internet Research. 2015; 17 (3):e63. [ PMC free article : PMC4376138 ] [ PubMed : 25768664 ]
• Levac D., Colquhoun H., O’Brien K. K. Scoping studies: advancing the methodology. Implementation Science. 2010; 5 (1):69. [ PMC free article : PMC2954944 ] [ PubMed : 20854677 ]
• Levy Y., Ellis T.J. A systems approach to conduct an effective literature review in support of information systems research. Informing Science. 2006; 9 :181–211.
• Liberati A., Altman D. G., Tetzlaff J., Mulrow C., Gøtzsche P. C., Ioannidis J. P. A. et al. Moher D. The prisma statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: Explanation and elaboration. Annals of Internal Medicine. 2009; 151 (4):W-65. [ PubMed : 19622512 ]
• Lyden J. R., Zickmund S. L., Bhargava T. D., Bryce C. L., Conroy M. B., Fischer G. S. et al. McTigue K. M. Implementing health information technology in a patient-centered manner: Patient experiences with an online evidence-based lifestyle intervention. Journal for Healthcare Quality. 2013; 35 (5):47–57. [ PubMed : 24004039 ]
• Mickan S., Atherton H., Roberts N. W., Heneghan C., Tilson J.K. Use of handheld computers in clinical practice: a systematic review. bmc Medical Informatics and Decision Making. 2014; 14 :56. [ PMC free article : PMC4099138 ] [ PubMed : 24998515 ]
• Moher D. The problem of duplicate systematic reviews. British Medical Journal. 2013; 347 (5040) [ PubMed : 23945367 ] [ CrossRef ]
• Montori V. M., Wilczynski N. L., Morgan D., Haynes R. B., Hedges T. Systematic reviews: a cross-sectional study of location and citation counts. bmc Medicine. 2003; 1 :2. [ PMC free article : PMC281591 ] [ PubMed : 14633274 ]
• Mulrow C. D. The medical review article: state of the science. Annals of Internal Medicine. 1987; 106 (3):485–488. [ PubMed : 3813259 ] [ CrossRef ]
• Evidence-based information systems: A decade later. Proceedings of the European Conference on Information Systems ; 2011. Retrieved from http://aisel ​.aisnet.org/cgi/viewcontent ​.cgi?article ​=1221&context ​=ecis2011 .
• Okoli C., Schabram K. A guide to conducting a systematic literature review of information systems research. ssrn Electronic Journal. 2010
• Otte-Trojel T., de Bont A., Rundall T. G., van de Klundert J. How outcomes are achieved through patient portals: a realist review. Journal of American Medical Informatics Association. 2014; 21 (4):751–757. [ PMC free article : PMC4078283 ] [ PubMed : 24503882 ]
• Paré G., Trudel M.-C., Jaana M., Kitsiou S. Synthesizing information systems knowledge: A typology of literature reviews. Information & Management. 2015; 52 (2):183–199.
• Patsopoulos N. A., Analatos A. A., Ioannidis J.P. A. Relative citation impact of various study designs in the health sciences. Journal of the American Medical Association. 2005; 293 (19):2362–2366. [ PubMed : 15900006 ]
• Paul M. M., Greene C. M., Newton-Dame R., Thorpe L. E., Perlman S. E., McVeigh K. H., Gourevitch M.N. The state of population health surveillance using electronic health records: A narrative review. Population Health Management. 2015; 18 (3):209–216. [ PubMed : 25608033 ]
• Pawson R. Evidence-based policy: a realist perspective. London: SAGE Publications; 2006.
• Pawson R., Greenhalgh T., Harvey G., Walshe K. Realist review—a new method of systematic review designed for complex policy interventions. Journal of Health Services Research & Policy. 2005; 10 (Suppl 1):21–34. [ PubMed : 16053581 ]
• Petersen K., Vakkalanka S., Kuzniarz L. Guidelines for conducting systematic mapping studies in software engineering: An update. Information and Software Technology. 2015; 64 :1–18.
• Petticrew M., Roberts H. Systematic reviews in the social sciences: A practical guide. Malden, ma : Blackwell Publishing Co; 2006.
• Rousseau D. M., Manning J., Denyer D. Evidence in management and organizational science: Assembling the field’s full weight of scientific knowledge through syntheses. The Academy of Management Annals. 2008; 2 (1):475–515.
• Rowe F. What literature review is not: diversity, boundaries and recommendations. European Journal of Information Systems. 2014; 23 (3):241–255.
• Shea B. J., Hamel C., Wells G. A., Bouter L. M., Kristjansson E., Grimshaw J. et al. Boers M. amstar is a reliable and valid measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 2009; 62 (10):1013–1020. [ PubMed : 19230606 ]
• Shepperd S., Lewin S., Straus S., Clarke M., Eccles M. P., Fitzpatrick R. et al. Sheikh A. Can we systematically review studies that evaluate complex interventions? PLoS Medicine. 2009; 6 (8):e1000086. [ PMC free article : PMC2717209 ] [ PubMed : 19668360 ]
• Silva B. M., Rodrigues J. J., de la Torre Díez I., López-Coronado M., Saleem K. Mobile-health: A review of current state in 2015. Journal of Biomedical Informatics. 2015; 56 :265–272. [ PubMed : 26071682 ]
• Smith V., Devane D., Begley C., Clarke M. Methodology in conducting a systematic review of systematic reviews of healthcare interventions. bmc Medical Research Methodology. 2011; 11 (1):15. [ PMC free article : PMC3039637 ] [ PubMed : 21291558 ]
• Sylvester A., Tate M., Johnstone D. Beyond synthesis: re-presenting heterogeneous research literature. Behaviour & Information Technology. 2013; 32 (12):1199–1215.
• Templier M., Paré G. A framework for guiding and evaluating literature reviews. Communications of the Association for Information Systems. 2015; 37 (6):112–137.
• Thomas J., Harden A. Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews. bmc Medical Research Methodology. 2008; 8 (1):45. [ PMC free article : PMC2478656 ] [ PubMed : 18616818 ]
• Reconstructing the giant: on the importance of rigour in documenting the literature search process. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 17th European Conference on Information Systems ( ecis 2009); Verona, Italy. 2009.
• Webster J., Watson R.T. Analyzing the past to prepare for the future: Writing a literature review. Management Information Systems Quarterly. 2002; 26 (2):11.
• Whitlock E. P., Lin J. S., Chou R., Shekelle P., Robinson K.A. Using existing systematic reviews in complex systematic reviews. Annals of Internal Medicine. 2008; 148 (10):776–782. [ PubMed : 18490690 ]

This publication is licensed under a Creative Commons License, Attribution-Noncommercial 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC 4.0): see https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

• Cite this Page Paré G, Kitsiou S. Chapter 9 Methods for Literature Reviews. In: Lau F, Kuziemsky C, editors. Handbook of eHealth Evaluation: An Evidence-based Approach [Internet]. Victoria (BC): University of Victoria; 2017 Feb 27.
• PDF version of this title (4.5M)
• Disable Glossary Links

In this Page

• Introduction
• Overview of the Literature Review Process and Steps
• Types of Review Articles and Brief Illustrations
• Concluding Remarks

Related information

• PMC PubMed Central citations
• PubMed Links to PubMed

Recent Activity

• Chapter 9 Methods for Literature Reviews - Handbook of eHealth Evaluation: An Ev... Chapter 9 Methods for Literature Reviews - Handbook of eHealth Evaluation: An Evidence-based Approach

Your browsing activity is empty.

Activity recording is turned off.

Turn recording back on

Connect with NLM

National Library of Medicine 8600 Rockville Pike Bethesda, MD 20894

Web Policies FOIA HHS Vulnerability Disclosure

Help Accessibility Careers

Login | Register

• UCL Press Journals
• About the journal
• Society affiliations
• Editorial Board
• Journal policies
• Calls for papers
• Submit to the journal
• Author guidelines
• Reviewer guidelines
• ⦿ Sign up for Publishing Alerts
• View Harvard Citation Style
• View Vancouver Citation Style
• View APA Citation Style
• Download RIS
• Download BibTeX

Students’ views of historical significance – a narrative literature review

Keywords: historical significance, historical narratives, national narratives, historical thinking, historical consciousness, historical reasoning, literature review, narrative review

How to Cite: Sjölund Åhsberg, C. (2024) ‘Students’ views of historical significance – a narrative literature review’. History Education Research Journal, 21 (1), 2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.14324/HERJ.21.1.02.

Rights: 2024, Cathrine Sjölund Åhsberg.

Downloads: Download PDF View PDF Download XML

Published on 14 Feb 2024

Peer reviewed, imported license, introduction.

History education has an important role to play in confronting the current political, cultural and social challenges facing Europe; in particular, those posed by the increasingly diverse nature of societies, the integration of migrants and refugees into Europe, and by attacks on democracy and democratic values. ( Council of Europe , 2018: 5 )

A more globalised society with new cultural and political challenges provides, or even demands, new ways of looking at and asking different questions of historical sources. New societal positions also challenge ideas about what content to include or exclude in history education. In this way, the concept of historical significance can be one way to bridge the gap between then and now, and to help us as researchers, teachers and students to regard history, and specifically what we see as significant history, as constantly moving and changing. In the framework for historical thinking, significance is mentioned first of the six established historical thinking concepts (see, for example, Seixas and Morton , 2013 ). Conceptions of significance are, according to Barton ( 2005: 9 ), ‘at the heart of all history – and history education’, since no historian, teacher or student can attend to all people and all events that have existed in the past. Didactical choices must be made: what is of importance in history, for whom is it important, how could we teach it and why should we do so? Depending on the answers to these questions, some stories will be considered worth exploring, while most parts of history will fall into oblivion. What we choose to highlight are the things in the past that are significant, or relevant, for us today. How we reason, or what criteria we use to make these choices, depend on who we are, how we position ourselves, and in what context ( Barton , 2005 ; Barton and Levstik , 1998 ; Lévesque , 2005 ).

What conceptions of history/histories, and what substantive knowledge in history, are seen as significant?

Who are the different stakeholders in the reviewed research: who is included in and/or seen as significant in history and history education?

Why is research on significant history important?

How can (future) history education be designed?

This review delves into the second-order concept of historical significance. In one of the first articles that explored historical significance empirically, it was defined as ‘the valuing criterion through which the historian assesses which pieces of the entire possible corpus of the past can fit together into a meaningful and coherent story that is worthwhile’ ( Seixas , 1994: 281 ). Research has examined students’ different conceptions of historical significance ( Barton , 2005 ; Barton and Levstik , 1998 ; Cercadillo , 2000 ; Lévesque , 2005 ; Levstik , 2008 ; Seixas , 1994 , 1997 ), with some studies highlighting the implicit vernacular histories that students use for assessing historical significance (for example, Barton and Levstik , 1998 ; Lévesque , 2005 ; Peck , 2010 ). A few studies have developed and employed conceptual frameworks when investigating students’ perspectives on significance ( Cercadillo , 2000 , 2001 , 2006 ; Lévesque , 2005 , 2008 ; Seixas , 1994 , 1997 ). Earlier frameworks for historical significance (for example, Danto , 1985 ; Partington , 1980 ) often had historiographic origins, and primarily focused on objective criteria. In contrast, more recent frameworks (for example, Cercadillo , 2000 , 2001 , 2006 ; Counsell , 2004 ; Lévesque , 2005 ; Peck and Seixas , 2008 ; Phillips , 2002 ; Seixas , 1997 ) have included subjective criteria, where historical significance depends on the student assessing it.

Reviews have previously been conducted over this research area. Cercadillo ( 2000 ) includes a review in her thesis that goes further back than Barton ( 2005 ). She discusses previous research in relation to ‘objective’ ( Beck and McKeown , 1994 ) or ‘subjective’ significance ( Barton , 1999 ; Epstein , 1997 ; Levstik , 1997 ; Seixas , 1993 , 1996 , 1997 ). VanSledright and Limón ( 2006: 555–6 ) give an overview of the research on historical significance (although not only on students’ perspectives) as a part of a review of cognitive research in history and geography, referring to Barton and Levstik ( 1998 ), Cercadillo ( 2001 ), Epstein ( 1998 ), Levstik ( 2000 ), Seixas ( 1997 ) and Yeager et al. ( 2002 ). In this narrative review, a review by Barton ( 2005 ), addressing research on students’ conceptions of historical significance, is referred to, both to provide an overview of previous research, and to allow for the possibility of making comparisons. Barton ’s ( 2005 ) review, including nine studies between 1995 and 2005, distinguishes two tracks in the research. The first ( Cercadillo , 2001 ; Seixas , 1994 , 1997 ) mainly analysed students’ second-order understandings, focusing on different categorisations or types of explanations of historical reasoning , and not on substantive content. According to Barton ( 2005: 15 ), ‘none of these studies … include an attempt to explain their findings theoretically’. The second track is a set of studies conducted in the United States ( Barton , 1994 , 2005 ; Barton and Levstik , 1998 ; Epstein , 1998 , 2000 ; Levstik , 2001 – this book chapter was also published in 2008 in Researching History Education [ Levstik , 2008 ]) that focus on the content of students’ reasoning . All these studies are based on a sociocultural approach, referring to Cole ( 1996 ), Wertsch ( 1998 ) and Bodnar ’s ( 1992 ) distinction between official and vernacular history , and to VanSledright ’s ( 1998 ) theory relating to historical positionality . According to Barton ( 2005 ), these studies, focusing on content and searching for common elements in answers, offer more insight into students’ historical frameworks than the first set. Since the aim of this article is to explore the current research area of historical significance, this review starts at the beginning of the millennium. With only three articles in common – Epstein ( 2000 ), Levstik ( 2001 ) and Yeager et al. ( 2002 ) – this review picks up almost where Barton ’s ( 2005 ) review leaves off.

Method and material

This study is conducted in the form of a systematic narrative review. The aim is to use the advantages of both the narrative and the systematic review method in this article. The narrative review, with its interpretive aim of critically analysing and discussing a comprehensive area of research, relies on the researcher’s judgement and expertise to identify and synthesise relevant studies, and typically presents the findings in a descriptive and qualitative manner ( Bryman , 2012 ; Shadish et al. , 2002 ). The systematic or standardised process of searching, selecting and appraising the research used in systematic reviews is used to strengthen it ( Bryman , 2012 ). The systematic reporting of this review is done with the help of relevant parts of the PRISMA statement, a checklist and a flow diagram developed to improve the transparency and reproducibility of systematic reviews and meta-analyses ( Moher et al. , 2009 ). This has been useful for emphasising the importance of clearly stating research questions, search strategies, and inclusion and exclusion criteria. In addition, the intention with this review, with its possibilities for meta-analysis, is to produce new perspectives and new interpretations, and to find gaps that would not be possible to observe in the original studies on their own ( Noblit and Hare , 1988 , adapted by Beach , 2017 ).

ERIC (EBSCO): 137

ERC (EBSCO): 154

Education Database (ProQuest): 83

Scopus: 137.

In what national context(s) was the research done, and when?

What research methods and methods of analysis were used?

What research theory/theories was/were used, and from which perspectives?

What are the results/assumptions about historical significance according to the research?

What, according to the author(s), are the implications of the research for history education?

In the first part of the results section, an overview of the included articles will be given, first by describing different perspectives in the research, and then by presenting when and where the research is from, and what methods, theories and perspectives have been used. The second part includes the results of the thematic analysis involving the results and the implications of the reviewed articles.

Part 1: A descriptive overview of the research area

An introduction to the reviewed articles through perspectives and themes.

focus on students’ reasoning on historical significance in relation to students’ identities and/or ethnicities and/or language backgrounds (18 articles);

focus on exploring students’ explanations or processes of historical reasoning and/or significant content (14 articles).

Thematic introduction of the reviewed articles  

* Studies which compare students’ views on historical significance in two different national contexts.

It is common to explicitly explore students’ views on historical significance in relation to narratives/themes, often national, and different kinds of identities. A more articulated comparative approach is often used in the analysis of the empirical data, some exploring ethnic/racial perspectives ( Epstein , 2000 ; Grever et al. , 2008 ; Levstik and Groth , 2005 ; Peck , 2009 , 2010 ; Savenije et al. , 2014 ; Terzian and Yeager , 2007 ) and/or language/ethnic/regional perspectives ( Lévesque , 2005 ; Sant et al. , 2015 ; Zanazanian , 2015 ), religious perspectives ( Barton , 2005 ), intergenerational perspectives ( Olofsson et al. , 2017 ), or student/teacher comparison ( Levstik , 2000 ) and/or cross-national comparisons ( Barton , 2005 ; Barton and McCully , 2005 ; Grever et al. , 2008 ; Serrano and Barca , 2019 ; Yeager et al. , 2002 ; also, Levstik [ 2001 ] indirectly compares results from students in New Zealand with results from prior research in a US context) or an expert/novice perspective ( Sheehan , 2011 ). This can be compared to Barton ’s review ( 2005 ), where only two ( Epstein , 1998 , 2000 ) out of nine studies explored ideas of students of different ethnicities.

Contexts of (and in) the reviewed articles: when, where and who?

There seems to be a slight increase over time in production of articles about students’ views of historical significance, with 13 of the 32 articles being published in the last five years of the defined period. The country with the strongest research environment, in terms of the number of articles produced, is the US ( n = 7). In Europe, the articles are produced primarily in the north-western parts, although the Iberian Peninsula also has a strong representation. There is a somewhat higher production of articles regarding historical significance in European countries (17, of which one is a comparative study that includes the US) compared to studies in North America (12, of which one is the above-mentioned comparative study with Europe). (For a list of all the reviewed articles, and countries of origin, see Table 1 .) Four articles from the rest of the world were found using the selection criteria. All in all, the reviewed research included 15 different countries. (This could be 16, depending on whether Britain – probably referring to the UK in Barton and McCully [ 2005 ] – and England count as different countries.) In four cases, the studies compare students’ views on historical significance in two different national contexts (see articles marked with * in Table 1 ). No articles meeting the criteria have been found from some rather large countries, for example, France and Germany.

The research that the articles describe involves everything from 5 participants to 660, with an average of 129.5 and a median of 67 participants. Participants’ ages are from 9 to adult, and the most frequently occurring age range is 16–18. The results of Barton ’s ( 2005 ) review show that fewer and younger students participated in the research between 1995 and 2005 (participant number range 10–144, average 56, median 48; age range 10–17).

Methodology used in the reviewed articles

In most of the reviewed articles ( n = 19), a multi-methods approach is used (defined in this article as using two or more methods in the research). A common combination of methods ( n = 6) is a picture-selection task combined with semi-structured interviews , both individual and in groups, and a ranking task . It is common to include a picture-selection task ( n = 10) among the methods. These tasks include between 15 and 51 captioned pictures. This can be compared with Barton ’s ( 2005 ) review, where three articles out of nine used a set of captioned pictures ( Barton and Levstik , 1998 ; Epstein , 2000 ; Levstik , 2001 ), and two articles used lists ( Seixas , 1997 ; Yeager et al. , 2002 ). Interviews are the most common method ( n = 17), either individual or in groups, and almost always in a semi-structured way. Interviews are used as a complement in all the 11 studies that use three methods or more in combination. Written narratives or prompted writing/drawing tasks ( n = 13) are also frequently used in the research. It is most common to use qualitative methods of analysis ( n = 25) in this area of research. The methods are often described, but not always specified by name. The most often used methods of analysis are different kinds of thematic or content analysis.

Theories and perspectives used in the reviewed articles

The analysis shows that from a theoretical point of view, there are almost as many reviewed articles that have a theory-building aim ( n = 13), primarily mapping different dimensions of (national) narratives, as an aim that is primarily theory-testing/using ( n = 11), using prior frameworks of criteria for significance or narratives, or a combination of both. (The former group can perhaps be compared with Barton ’s [ 2005: 13 ] first set of studies in his review, focusing primarily on the types of explanations that ‘provide insight into the structural variety of students’ explanations’. Research that aims at pattern-searching and/or mapping of different strategies has been searched for in this review.) The rest of the articles ( n = 8) have a focus on students’ reasoning and ideas about historical significance, and how they change depending on different circumstances. Sociocultural theory is used as a theoretical vantage point in four of the reviewed articles. Wertsch’s sociocultural theory (for example, Wertsch , 1998 , 2000 , 2002 , 2004 ) concerning narrative templates is often referred to ( n = 16). Historical thinking is explicitly used as a perspective in 14 of the reviewed articles, but researchers in that field (for example, Barton , 1999 , 2005 ; Barton and Levstik , 1998 ; Epstein , 1997 , 1998 ; Peck , 2009 , 2010 ; Yeager et al. , 2002 ) are cited in eight more articles. The theoretical framework historical consciousness is used explicitly in four articles. (For a short overview of the research field of historical consciousness in relation to historical thinking, see, for example, Lévesque and Clark , 2018 .) For example, Rüsen’s various works ( Rüsen , 1993 , 2004 , 2005 , 2017 ) concerning ‘narrative typologies’, are referred to in eight of the articles. To conclude, the analysis shows that new theoretical frameworks have been introduced in this research area since Barton ’s ( 2005 ) review.

Part 2: Results of the thematic analysis of the reviewed articles

The reviewed articles are different in their aims and scopes, which explains differences in how the results are framed and reported on. The most common way to ask for students’ views on historical significance is in an open-ended way ( n = 16). In some cases, this is done in the form of open-ended narrations ( n = 13), as in Olofsson et al. ( 2017: 246 ), where students are asked to ‘Tell Sweden’s history up to the present the way you remember it, view it, or understand it.’ Other researchers frame their questions in a narrower way, asking the students to make open-ended lists ( n = 3): ‘Who, do you think, are the most significant ten people in the history?’ ( Avarogullari and Kolcu , 2016: 70 ), and thereby get very specific answers. Both questions give a result of what content students see as historically significant, but the scope of the content, and how it will be framed and narrated, depend on how the question is phrased initially.

What (in) history is seen as significant by the students?

History education plays an important role in the transmission and perpetuation of national narratives in both conscious and unconscious ways ( Wertsch , 2002 ). These national narratives frame how, in this case, the students in the articles talk about ‘us’ and sometimes ‘them’, but they also frame what (in) history is seen as significant. In many of the studies that investigate historical significance, the reasoning about significant (national) history is therefore often explored in relation to different national narratives (see, for example, Barton , 2005 ; Kim , 2018 ; Olofsson et al. , 2017 ; Sant et al. , 2015 ). The references to Wertsch (for example, 1998 , 2000 , 2002 , 2004 ) and national narrative templates are an important part of the theoretical framework in many of the reviewed articles: 16 articles use Wertsch (for example, 1998 , 2000 , 2002 , 2004 , 2012 , 2017 ) in their analysis or research design (‘schematic narrative templates’ or ‘master narratives’), or as a reference in the theory section of the article. In the section below, I first give an account of the different conceptions of history/histories that students found significant in the reviewed articles, and I then exemplify what concrete substantive knowledge in history is stated to be significant in the articles that specify this.

Conceptions of history/histories

Three overarching themes emerged during analysis of students’ use of significant history, or histories: vernacular history (here defined as local history and/or history close to the students’ family life), official history and history of other places. In nine articles, students point to the significance of vernacular history in different ways: as cultural history , or as a wide range of unofficial strands of history ( Apostolidou , 2012 ; Grever et al. , 2008 ; Lévesque , 2005 ; Rivero and Pelegrín , 2019 ; Sant et al. , 2015 ), or the history of refugees’ home country ( Virta , 2016 ). Levstik ( 2000: 300 ) points to a tension regarding students’ interest in alternative histories , including, for example, ‘race, dissent, gender and class’, when interviewed teachers and teacher candidates rejected these, and avoided possibly divisive or coercive histories. Dan et al. ’s ( 2010 ) study shows that African American students rate significantly higher on family as a historical source than European American students. In Ghana ( Levstik and Groth , 2005 ), the ‘emerging “official” history’ also includes vernacular histories, which is unusual in the reviewed articles. In four articles, the results suggest that students find official history, the history often taught in school, significant ( Avarogullari and Kolcu , 2016 ; Bergman , 2020 ; Olofsson et al. , 2017 ; Yeager et al. , 2002 ). This history is perceived as political history, close to the official one, often characterised by male actors. History in other places is seen as significant in three articles ( Levstik , 2001 ; Sheehan , 2011 ), including equality in all historical contexts and times, with slavery as an example ( Savenije et al. , 2014 ).

What then, according to the reviewed articles, is seen as significant (in) history? One comprehensive conclusion is that the choice of significant substantive knowledge is influenced by the researchers’ aims and interests, the questions and the options given in the study, and the (geographical, national and other) positionings and prior knowledge/school background of the informants. Many of the articles that specify substantive knowledge point out that students have an interest in the traditional kind of history that is close to a national narrative. In relation to Swedish history education, Olofsson et al. ( 2017 ) explain this as a result of strong selective traditions , which revolve around a recurrent national narrative. In US and British contexts, Yeager et al. ( 2002: 213 ) point out that a potential collective ‘“authoritative grand narrative” pervades a given society or culture and is consistently reinforced in the official school curriculum’. Another explanation can be teachers applying ‘the Code of Silence’, avoiding histories or substantive knowledge that can bother students and their parents, and make the teachers themselves uncomfortable ( Levstik , 2000 ).

Significant substantive knowledge

As a result of the analysis, three themes regarding significant substantive knowledge in history have emerged: significant substantive knowledge in relation to national and/or political contexts ; in the ‘dark pages’ of history ; and in vernacular or other contexts.

Most results concerning significant substantive knowledge seem to be influenced by the national context, where historical figures and events are chosen from an ethnocentric and nationalist perspective (for example, Apostolidou , 2012 ; Avarogullari and Kolcu , 2016 ; Olofsson et al. , 2017 ; Rivero and Pelegrín , 2019 ; Sant et al. , 2015 ). One example of this is the choice of Christopher Columbus and the discovery of America as the most significant historical person and event in Spanish and Portuguese history ( Rivero and Pelegrín , 2019 ). Informants also choose significant substantive knowledge of a political kind , although still with an influence from the national context ( Bergman , 2020 ; Egea Vivancos and Arias Ferrer , 2018 ; Levstik and Groth , 2005 ; Sant et al. , 2015 ; Serrano and Barca , 2019 ). As an example, Flemish students selected ‘male, political and military approaches to the national past’ as significant substantive knowledge ( Van Havere et al. , 2017: 281 ).

The second theme includes students’ interest in the ‘dark pages’ of national history ( Grever et al. , 2008: 84 ). These ‘dark pages’ can include continuous, political conflicts ( Barton , 2005 ), war ( Virta , 2016 ), exciting and bloody events ( Bergman , 2020 ) and traumatic events ( Sant et al. , 2015 ). Dark schematic narrative templates are also used in choosing significant substantive knowledge ( Kim , 2018 ; Levstik and Groth , 2005 ).

Students’ interest in substantive knowledge in vernacular history is focused on in three articles, concerning: life in their hometown ( Fertig et al. , 2005 ); home countries ( Virta , 2016 ); and symbols of the region ( Sant et al. , 2015 ). Students are also open to influences from the world outside regarding substantive knowledge ( Levstik , 2001 ) and in twentieth-century events and colonial legacy ( Sheehan , 2011 ).

Who is significant in history?

This section will account for the ‘who’ in significant history: who is included and/or seen as significant in history and history education? This ‘who’ has several layers. It starts on the collective level with how the participating students narrate the stories of ‘us’ as a group or as a nation. The focus then moves to the individual level, towards the students themselves in relation to significant history. Finally, the aim is also to examine whether, and in what way, significant history is gendered according to the students.

Who are ‘we’ in significant history?

One way of expressing a ‘we’ is to narrate a story about ‘us’ as a nation. These narratives are told in different ways. Students in some articles recount positive historical narratives about the country, described either as stable or improving: ‘a national narrative of national uniqueness and progress’ ( Terzian and Yeager , 2007: 76 ); emancipation and progress ( Levstik , 2000 ); national development and continuous success (in regard to the US students in previous research with which Barton [ 2005 ] compares the results); unity and social cohesion ( Rivero and Pelegrín , 2019 ); and (1) the long peace and (2) narrative of progress ( Olofsson et al. , 2017 ). There are also narratives that tell a tale of regression or conflict: continuous, political conflicts in history ( Barton , 2005 ), and a patriotic and dualistic historical narrative including traumatic events which together gives a plot of decline in Catalunya ( Sant et al. , 2015 ). The two narratives used most frequently by Flemish adults are ‘ Lines of Fracture ’ and ‘ Foreign Occupations’ ( Van Havere et al. , 2017: 278 ).

There are also students in some articles that express more ambiguous narratives : ‘we won freedom and democracy (but now we also have an economic crisis)’; ‘Worldwide there is technological progress, but there is also war and terrorism’ ( Magalhães , 2012: 11–12 ); ‘tragedy, struggle and achievement of freedom and equality as a cultural tool’ ( Kim , 2018: 527 ). There are also examples of narratives with a fluctuating tendency: initial conquests , a golden period of maritime discoveries , and a recent dictatorship overcome by the restoration of democracy ( Serrano and Barca , 2019 ), as in Ghana, where the national narrative goes from a bad situation to hopes for something better, with the need for unity but also the value of diversity ( Levstik and Groth , 2005 ). Students in Canada use three different narrative templates: ‘ Founding of the Nation ’, ‘ Diverse and Harmonious Canada ’ and ‘ Diverse but Conflicted Canada ’ ( Peck , 2009 , 2010 ). National narratives expressed by the students can also take more of a moral stance: learning from others , teaching to the world and using fairness as important criteria for determining historical significance ( Levstik , 2001 ). Sweden is portrayed as a ‘country that has left conflict behind’ ( Olofsson et al. , 2017: 253 ), while Barton ’s ( 2005 ) study shows that the girls who participated expressed a ‘moral’ stance when selecting historical significance, focusing on memory , justice , and the importance of helping others .

Who am I as a student in relation to significant history?

I will now turn the focus to the students and their positioning(s) in relation to significant history and the narratives described above. There are examples of research where the historical narratives that the students express are in harmony with the official historical narrative and history curricula ( Bergman , 2020 ; Rivero and Pelegrín , 2019 ; Terzian and Yeager , 2007 ). Flemish students use a supranational, Western-oriented identification and a sense of belonging that lies very close to the aims of the history curriculum ( Van Nieuwenhuyse and Wils , 2015 ), while students in New Zealand express a self-perception that the country, and its history, are situated on the margins ( Levstik , 2001 ). There are also examples where the students’, or groups of students’, identification(s) are in dissonance with the national narratives (and perhaps with the curriculum): the students’ ethnic identities are important in shaping their narratives. These narratives are used as ‘identity resources in order to better locate themselves in particular narratives of Canadian history’ ( Peck , 2009: 70 ; also see Peck , 2010 ). Immigrant students in Finland find their home country historically significant, but not hearing about it in history education is regarded as ‘normal’, since Finland had another national history ( Virta , 2016 ). Catalan students’ historical narratives correlate with the ‘official’ Catalan narrative, but not with the syllabus used in school. A strong influence from a vernacular narrative and/or collective memory is suggested, and Catalan students’ narratives imply that they do not see themselves as being, or becoming, ‘active citizens in their society’ ( Sant et al. , 2015: 355 ).

The processes of deciding what is historically significant can be complicated, and can seem to take different forms depending on the national/regional context in combination with the cultural context and the positioning(s) of the student. The students use different narratives or significance criteria depending on whether the students are English-speaking or French-speaking, and the students’ position as minority or majority ( Lévesque , 2005 ; Sant et al. , 2015 ; Zanazanian , 2015 ), or depending on ethnic identities ( Dan et al. , 2010 ; Epstein , 2000 ; Grever et al. , 2008 ; Levstik , 2000 ; Peck , 2009 , 2010 ), ethnicity and geographical location ( Sheehan , 2011 ) or a connection to their own lives ( Dawes Duraisingh , 2017 ). The historical identification, for example, varies according to ‘gender, selectivity of school, and geographic region’ ( Barton and McCully , 2005: 95 ). The positionings of students also seem to move over time and years of schooling, as students’ community backgrounds become increasingly important ( Barton and McCully , 2005 ).

Is significant history gendered?

There are eight articles that take gender into consideration in relation to significant history. Three of these articles have results that suggest that significant history, and historical identification, can depend on the gender-based identity of the student ( Barton , 2005 ; Barton and McCully , 2005 ; Dan and Todd , 2011 ). Barton ( 2005 ) points to the fact that boys seem to focus on political history and social conflicts, while girls focus on memory, justice and the importance of helping others. Four articles point to and discuss a gendered history education , either oriented towards boys ( Barton and McCully , 2005 ) or a substantive knowledge in school history that has ‘male, political and military approaches to the national past’ ( Van Havere et al. , 2017: 281 ; but also Avarogullari and Kolcu , 2016 ; Bergman , 2020 ). Bergman ( 2020 ) and Sant et al. ( 2015 ) highlight the fact that women are invisible actors in the history of the nation according to the students’ narratives. Levstik ’s ( 2008 ) and Sheehan ’s ( 2011 ) results suggest that there are no discernible gender differences in the students’ choice of significant history.

To conclude: ‘who’, according to the reviewed articles, seems to be significant in history? Many of the articles express that students use historical narratives which are close to the official one, often with a positive approach in their narration. A male perspective on history, and in history education, seems to prevail. When discussing the students’ use of narratives, the picture becomes more complex, since their positions and different identities seem to influence the selection of significant history.

Why is research on significant history important (and for whom)?

This section will give a short account of the didactical implications of the reviewed articles. With these results as a point of departure, the focus will be turned towards what may be needed in future history education.

Didactical implications for future history education

Four articles have implications for teachers , teaching materials and curricula ( Avarogullari and Kolcu , 2016 ; Dan and Todd , 2011 ; Sheehan , 2011 ; Zanazanian , 2015 ). In 10 articles, the main point of the implications is for teachers to focus on the students’ identities and their perceptions of history education ( Barton , 2005 ; Barton and McCully , 2005 ; Dan et al. , 2010 ; Grever et al. , 2008 ; Levstik , 2000 ; Peck , 2009 , 2010 ; Terzian and Yeager , 2007 ; Van Havere et al. , 2017 ; Virta , 2016 ).

Eight of the articles point to the importance of developing perspective-taking to improve students’ participation and engagement in history education ( Barton , 2005 ; Dan and Todd , 2011 ; Dan et al. , 2010 ; Grever et al. , 2008 ; Levstik , 2001 ; Peck , 2009 ; Zanazanian , 2015 ); perspective-taking could also be developed through the deconstruction of national templates ( Van Havere et al. , 2017 ). In addition to developing an awareness of multiple perspectives in history, the results of five articles suggest the need for more use of historical thinking tools , or for the introduction of a more disciplinary approach to history, in order to develop history education ( Avarogullari and Kolcu , 2016 ; Peck , 2009 ; Sheehan , 2011 ). This includes strengthening the use of historical significance as an explicit tool for addressing students’ misconceptions about the past ( Lévesque , 2005 ), and introducing non-narrative tools ( Kim , 2018 ). In six articles, the didactical implications of the results point to the need for critical thinking in history education ( Barton and McCully , 2005 ; Sant et al. , 2015 ; Serrano and Barca , 2019 ; Van Havere et al. , 2017 ). Levstik ( 2000: 300 ) points to the importance of helping students to formulate questions for inquiry ‘for making critical sense out of legitimation stories as well as alternative, vernacular histories’. Kim ( 2018 ) suggests including a more global perspective on history , introducing different kinds of templates to help students to construct counter-narratives .

The importance of taking students’ different identities into account in history education.

The importance of helping students to develop a more disciplinary approach that includes critical thinking skills and tools.

Following these conclusions, the last research question will be addressed: How then could future history education be designed, according to the researchers in the reviewed articles? And by whom? Knowledge about (the possibilities of) different perspectives, with a combination of disciplinary tools and skills to analyse and problematise, could potentially be used by students to deconstruct established narratives in official or vernacular history. This work starts at a curricular level, but it should be followed up in the classroom, with students actively involved. In this way, a more individually and culturally responsive history education can be created, which in turn might improve students’ participation and results.

Concluding discussion

One conclusion drawn from this review is that the international research area addressing historical significance from a student perspective has gradually and slowly expanded since the beginning of the millennium. This expansion is multifaceted: new theoretical perspectives, such as historical consciousness, have been added, and more experiences have been made visible by using different kinds of perspectives when analysing students’ identity positions. The research area also covers more countries and regions. However, there is still a much higher representation of studies from North America and Western Europe, and very few studies from the rest of the world. There are also only glimpses of significant histories from Indigenous points of view. Since the more recent research seems to include older students than before ( Barton , 2005 ), another gap is the lack of younger students’ views on historical significance. These representational gaps are some of the power imbalances that this review has identified. Another conclusion is that the students in the reviewed articles mainly identify traditional substantive knowledge as significant. Official narratives and their content are therefore seldom challenged. The studies where students use national narratives with a positive/progressing or declining tendency, or with a moral stance, could be seen to express (re)presentations of the nations’ norms, traditions, practices and values ( Biesta , 2020 ; Nordgren , 2017 ). As a part of history education, these official narratives constitute a base for creating one national, regional or local identity, which can ‘permeate society’, and where societal unity, status quo and cohesion might be or are encouraged ( Peck , 2018 ). The same could be said about the research that concludes that history education is gendered, and the fact that women, according to the students in some studies, are invisible actors in national history, while male history is more present and visible. The ‘who’ in the research is therefore still mainly a national, predominantly male, ‘we’. These ways of reasoning about significant history could be seen as reflecting ‘knowledge of the powerful’, rather than powerful knowledge ( Muller and Young , 2019 ).

There are, however, interesting exceptions to this hegemony. The alternative histories and perspectives that some of the students in the research express, either through students’ identification(s) that are in dissonance with the national narratives, or students’ interest in vernacular history, history of other places, and ‘dark pages’ of history, can be seen as indirect disruptions or challenges to the traditional, often national, narratives or canons. These results also suggest influences of a multitude of experiences of history, often provided by people in the students’ families and communities ( Barton , 2005 ). Research that notes students’ use of ‘counter-narratives’ is also found in a review by Peck ( 2018: 317 ).

At least in part, these differences in students’ reasoning when discussing significant history could be explained by variations in ‘historical positionality’ ( VanSledright , 1998 ). Relatively rare perspectives in the reviewed research include race, gender and culture. One interesting example of this is the tension or gap between how young people talk about history and identity, compared to the expressions of politicians and policy makers, who often urge students to learn the ‘right’ stories ( Lee , 2004: 155 ). This is often done in the form of a central national narrative ( Grever et al. , 2008 ). Another example of tension ( Levstik , 2000 ) is the students’ interest in alternative histories that include negative and diverse images of being an American citizen. In contrast, the interviewed teachers and teacher candidates reject these images and avoid the topics that the students found significant. Not connecting with these silenced topics of ‘otherness’ in history education could make it ‘difficult to make connections between their family and/or ethnic histories and those which are taught in school’ ( Peck , 2018: 311–12 ). These silences and tensions between different positions are interesting, and they need to be researched further in other contexts.

The implications of the reviewed research indicate an unambiguous answer to why the research on significant history is important and how a future history education can be designed. Almost all studies underline the importance of taking students’ different identities into account in history education and/or helping students to develop a more disciplinary approach that includes critical thinking skills. With histories, and history education, that include voices of diversity in contemporary culture, students can try to deconstruct myths about homogenic societies, and in that way potentially start to interpret today’s globalised society. With these diverse perspectives on history, students might also get opportunities to acquire agency in their own lives, ‘in and with the world’ ( Biesta , 2020: 95 ).

What, then, could be possible futures for research about historical significance? Relatively rare perspectives in the reviewed research include race, gender and culture. Smith Crocco ( 2018 ) emphasises the relevance of gender and sexuality perspectives in history teaching, as these touch on important power aspects – both concerning national narratives and concerning the choice of significant substantive knowledge. This in turn contributes to how students view themselves. Research concerning Indigenous students is rare in the review, with an exception for Levstik ( 2001 ). Peck ( 2018 ) also concludes that this perspective is lacking, and therefore pushes for methodical innovations to situate data in different sociocultural contexts. Although ethnicity is a relatively common perspective in the reviewed research, there is only one article ( Virta , 2016 ) that examines a specifically migrant or refugee perspective on significant history, even though students with this background have become more common in history classrooms in the last few decades ( Council of Europe , 2018 ). With the exception of Barton ( 2005 ), who addresses religion as a factor in the conflicts of Northern Ireland, no articles were found that discuss or problematise the results from religious, LGBTQ+, environmental or class-related perspectives.

This review, with its global scope, has contributed to highlighting these challenging, intersectional tensions and research gaps. Exploring these spaces in future research would offer important opportunities to further understand the relationships between students’ different positionings and their understandings of and use of historical significance. This, in turn, can allow for a relevant history education that can help students meet many of the future challenges of a more globalised and diverse society.

Declarations and conflicts of interest

Research ethics statement.

Not applicable to this article.

Consent for publication statement

Conflicts of interest statement.

The author declares no conflicts of interest with this work. All efforts to sufficiently anonymise the author during peer review of this article have been made. The author declares no further conflicts with this article.

Apostolidou, E. (2012).  ‘Teaching and discussing historical significance with 15-year-old students in Greece’.  International Journal of Historical Learning, Teaching and Research 11 (1) : 7.

Avarogullari, M; Kolcu, N. (2016).  ‘Historical significance from Turkish students’ perspective’.  International Education Studies 9 (4) : 69. DOI:  http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/ies.v9n4p69

Barton, KC. (1994).  ‘Historical Understanding among Elementary Children’.  EdD dissertation. Lexington, USA: University of Kentucky.

Barton, K. (1999).  ‘“Best not to forget them”: Positionality and students’ ideas about significance in Northern Ireland’.  Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association , Montreal, Canada 19–23 April,

Barton, KC. (2005).  ‘“Best not to forget them”: Secondary students’ judgments of historical significance in Northern Ireland’.  Theory and Research in Social Education 33 (1) : 9. DOI:  http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00933104.2005.10473270

Barton, KC; Levstik, LS. (1998).  ‘“It wasn’t a good part of history”: National identity and students’ explanations of historical significance’.  Teachers College Record 99 (3) : 478. DOI:  http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/016146819809900302

Barton, KC; McCully, AW. (2005).  ‘History, identity, and the school curriculum in Northern Ireland: An empirical study of secondary students’ ideas and perspectives’.  Journal of Curriculum Studies 37 (1) : 85. DOI:  http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0022027032000266070

Beach, D. (2017).  ‘Personalization and the education commodity: A meta-ethnographic analysis’.  Ethnography and Education 12 (2) : 148. DOI:  http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17457823.2016.1247738

Beck, I; McKeown, M. (1994).  ‘Outcomes of history instruction: Paste-up accounts’.  Cognitive and Instructional Processes in History and the Social Sciences . Carretero, M, Voss, J J (eds.),   Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 237.

Bergman, K. (2020).  ‘How younger students perceive and identify historical significance’.  History Education Research Journal 17 (2) : 164. DOI:  http://dx.doi.org/10.14324/HERJ.17.2.03

Biesta, G. (2020).  ‘Risking ourselves in education: Qualification, socialization, and subjectification revisited’.  Educational Theory 70 (1) : 89. DOI:  http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/edth.12411

Bodnar, JE. (1992).  Remaking America: Public memory, commemoration, and patriotism in the twentieth century . Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Braun, V; Clarke, V. (2006).  ‘Using thematic analysis in psychology’.  Qualitative Research in Psychology 3 (2) : 77. DOI:  http://dx.doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

Bryman, A. (2012).  Samhällsvetenskapliga metoder . 2nd revised ed. Malmö: Liber.

Cercadillo, L. (2000).  ‘Significance in History: Students’ ideas in England and Spain’.  PhD thesis. London, UK: Institute of Education, University of London.

Cercadillo, L. (2001).  ‘Significance in history: Students’ ideas in England and Spain’.  Raising Standards in History Education . Dickinson, A, Gordon, P; P and Lee, P P (eds.),   International Review of History Education, Vol. 3. London: Woburn Press, pp. 116.

Cercadillo, L. (2006).  ‘“Maybe they haven’t decided yet what is right”: English and Spanish perspectives on teaching historical significance’.  Teaching History 125 : 6.

Cole, M. (1996).  Cultural Psychology: A once and future discipline . Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.

Council of Europe. (2018).  Quality History Education in the 21st Century: Principles and guidelines , https://rm.coe.int/prems-108118-gbr-2507-quality-history-education-web-21x21/16808eace7 . Accessed 18 January 2022

Counsell, C. (2004).  ‘Looking through a Josephine-Butler-shaped window: Focusing pupils’ thinking on historical significance’.  Teaching History 114 (30) : 33.

Dan, Y; Todd, R. (2011).  ‘Students’ perceptions of the historical significance in U.S. history’.  Southern Social Studies Journal 37 (1) : 20.

Dan, Y; Todd, R; Lan, W. (2010).  ‘Consensus and difference: American students’ perspectives on the national history’.  Education 131 (2) : 331.

Danto, A. (1985).  Narration and Language . New York: Columbia University Press.

Dawes Duraisingh, ED. (2017).  ‘Making narrative connections? Exploring how late teens relate their own lives to the historically significant past’.  London Review of Education 15 (2) : 174. DOI:  http://dx.doi.org/10.18546/LRE.15.2.04

Egea Vivancos, A; Arias Ferrer, L. (2018).  ‘What is historically significant? Historical thinking through the narratives of college students’.  Educação e Pesquisa 44 DOI:  http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S1678-4634201709168641

Epstein, T. (1997).  ‘Sociocultural approaches to young people’s historical understanding’.  Social Education 61 (1) : 28.

Epstein, T. (1998).  ‘Deconstructing differences in African-American and European-American adolescents’ perspectives on U.S. history’.  Curriculum Inquiry 28 (4) : 397. DOI:  http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/0362-6784.00100

Epstein, T. (2000).  ‘Adolescents’ perspectives on racial diversity in U.S. history: Case studies from an urban classroom’.  American Educational Research Journal 37 (1) : 185. DOI:  http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/00028312037001185

Fertig, G; Rios–Alers, J; Seilbach, K. (2005).  ‘What’s important about the past: American fourth graders’ interpretations of historical significance’.  Educational Action Research 13 (3) : 435. DOI:  http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09650790500200290

Grever, M; Haydn, T; Ribbens, K. (2008).  ‘Identity and school history: The perspective of young people from the Netherlands and England’.  British Journal of Educational Studies 56 (1) : 76. DOI:  http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8527.2008.00396.x

Kim, G. (2018).  ‘Holding the severed finger: Korean students’ understanding of historical significance’.  Journal of Curriculum Studies 50 (4) : 508. DOI:  http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2018.1461934

Lee, P. (2004).  ‘Understanding history’.  Theorizing Historical Consciousness . Seixas, P (ed.),   Toronto: University of Toronto Press, pp. 129.

Lévesque, S. (2005).  ‘Teaching second-order concepts in Canadian history: The importance of “historical significance”’.  Canadian Social Studies 39 (2)

Lévesque, S. (2008).  ‘Thinking historically: Educating students for the twenty-first century’ . Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Lévesque, S; Clark, P. (2018).  ‘Historical thinking: Definitions and educational applications’.  The Wiley International Handbook of History Teaching and Learning . Metzger, SA, Harris, L McArthur L McArthur (eds.),   Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons, pp. 119.

Levstik, L. (1997).  ‘Any history is someone’s history: Listening to multiple voices in the past’.  Social Education 61 (1) : 48.

Levstik, LS. (2000).  ‘Articulating the silences: Teachers and adolescents’ conceptions of historical significance’.  Knowing, Teaching and Learning History . Stearns, PN, Seixas, P; P and Wineburg, S S (eds.),   New York: New York University Press, pp. 284.

Levstik, LS. (2001).  ‘Crossing the empty spaces: Perspective taking in New Zealand adolescents’ understanding of national history’.  Historical Empathy and Perspective-Taking in the Social Studies . Davis, OL, Yeager, EA; EA and Foster, SJ SJ (eds.),   Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, pp. 69.

Levstik, LS. (2008).  ‘Crossing the empty spaces: Perspective taking in New Zealand adolescents’ understanding of national history’.  Researching History Education: Theory, method, and context . Levstik, LS, Barton, KC KC (eds.),   New York: Routledge, pp. 366.

Levstik, L; Groth, J. (2005).  ‘“Ruled by our own people”: Ghanaian adolescents’.  Teachers College Record 107 (4) : 563. DOI:  http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/016146810510700402

Magalhães, O. (2012).  ‘Historical narratives of young Portuguese students’.  International Journal of History Teaching, Learning and Research 10 (2) : 11.

Moher, D; Liberati, A; Tetzlaff, J; Altman, DG. PRISMA Group. (2009).  ‘Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement’.  Annals of Internal Medicine 151 (4) : 264. DOI:  http://dx.doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-151-4-200908180-00135 [ PubMed ]

Muller, J; Young, M. (2019).  ‘Knowledge, power and powerful knowledge re-visited’.  The Curriculum Journal 30 (2) : 196. DOI:  http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09585176.2019.1570292

Noblit, G; Hare, R. (1988).  Meta-ethnography: Synthesizing qualitative studies (Qualitative Research Methods Series, 11) . Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Nordgren, K. (2017).  ‘Powerful knowledge, intercultural learning and history education’.  Journal of Curriculum Studies 49 (5) : 663. DOI:  http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2017.1320430

Olofsson, H; Samuelsson, J; Stolare, M; Wendell, J. (2017).  ‘The Swedes and their history’.  London Review of Education 15 (2) : 243. DOI:  http://dx.doi.org/10.18546/LRE.15.2.08

Partington, G. (1980).  ‘What history should we teach?’.  Oxford Review of Education 6 (2) : 157. DOI:  http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0305498800060204

Peck, C. (2009).  ‘Peering through a kaleidoscope: Identity, historical understanding and citizenship in Canada’.  Citizenship Teaching and Learning 5 (2) : 62.

Peck, C. (2010).  ‘“It’s not like [I’m] Chinese and Canadian. I am in between”: Ethnicity and students’ conceptions of historical significance’.  Theory and Research in Social Education 38 (4) : 574. DOI:  http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00933104.2010.10473440

Peck, C. (2018).  ‘National, ethnic, and indigenous identities and perspectives in history education’.  The Wiley International Handbook of History Teaching and Learning . Metzger, SA, Harris, L McArthur L McArthur (eds.),   New York: Wiley Blackwell, pp. 311.

Peck, C; Seixas, P. (2008).  ‘Benchmarks of historical thinking: First steps’.  Canadian Journal of Education 31 (4) : 1015. DOI:  http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/20466737

Phillips, R. (2002).  ‘Historical significance – the forgotten “key element”?’.  Teaching History 106 : 14.

Rivero, P; Pelegrín, J. (2019).  ‘What history do future teachers of early childhood education think is relevant?’.  Cadernos de Pesquisa 49 (172) : 96. DOI:  http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/198053145428

Rüsen, J. (1993).  Studies in Metahistory . Pretoria: Human Sciences Research Council.

Rüsen, J. (2004).  Berättande och förnuft: historieteoretiska texter . Gothenburg: Daidalos.

Rüsen, J. (2005).  History: Narration, interpretation, orientation . Making Sense of History, Vol. 5. New York: Berghahn.

Rüsen, J. (2017).  Evidence and Meaning: A theory of historical studies . Making Sense of History, Vol. 28. New York: Berghahn.

Sant, E; González-Monfort, N; Santisteban Fernández, A; Oller Freixa, M. (2015).  ‘How do Catalan students narrate the history of Catalonia when they finish primary education?’.  McGill Journal of Education/Revue des sciences de l’éducation de McGill 50 (2–3) : 341. DOI:  http://dx.doi.org/10.7202/1036436ar

Savenije, G; Van Boxtel, C; Grever, M. (2014).  ‘Sensitive “heritage” of slavery in a multicultural classroom: Pupils’ ideas regarding significance’.  British Journal of Educational Studies 62 (2) : 127. DOI:  http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00071005.2014.910292

Seixas, P. (1993).  ‘Historical understanding among adolescents in a multicultural setting’.  Curriculum Inquiry 23 (3) : 301. DOI:  http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03626784.1993.11076127

Seixas, P. (1994).  ‘Students’ understanding of historical significance’.  Theory & Research in Social Education 22 (3) : 281. DOI:  http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00933104.1994.10505726

Seixas, P. (1996).  ‘Conceptualizing the growth of historical understanding’.  The Handbook of Education and Human Development . Olson, D, Torrance, N N (eds.),   Cambridge, MA: Blackwell, pp. 733.

Seixas, P. (1997).  ‘Mapping the terrain of historical significance’.  Social Education 61 (1) : 22.

Seixas, P; Morton, T. (2013).  The Big Six: Historical thinking concepts . Toronto: Nelson Education.

Serrano, J; Barca, I. (2019).  ‘National narratives of Spanish and Portuguese students’.  Cadernos De Pesquisa (Fundação Carlos Chagas) 49 (172) : 78. DOI:  http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/198053145414

Shadish, WR; Cook, TD; Campbell, DT. (2002).  Experimental and Quasi-experimental Designs for Generalized Causal Inference . New York: Houghton Mifflin.

Sheehan, M. (2011).  ‘“Historical significance” in the senior school curriculum’.  New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies 46 (2) : 35.

Smith Crocco, M. (2018).  ‘Gender and sexuality in history education’.  The Wiley International Handbook of History Teaching and Learning . Metzger, SA, Harris, L McArthur L McArthur (eds.),   New York: Wiley Blackwell, pp. 335.

Terzian, SG; Yeager, EA. (2007).  ‘“That’s when we became a nation” Urban Latino adolescents and the designation of historical significance’.  Urban Education 42 (1) : 52. DOI:  http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0042085906294027

Uljens, M. (1997).  ‘Grunddrag till en reflektiv skoldidaktisk teori’.  I Didaktik – teori, reflektion och praktik . Uljens, M (ed.),   Lund: Studentlitteratur, pp. 166.

Van Havere, T; Wils, K; Depaepe, F; Verschaffel, L; Van Nieuwenhuyse, K. (2017).  ‘Flemish students’ historical substantive knowledge and narratives of the Belgian national past at the end of secondary education’.  London Review of Education 15 (2) : 272. DOI:  http://dx.doi.org/10.18546/LRE.15.2.10

Van Nieuwenhuyse, K; Wils, K. (2015).  ‘Historical narratives and national identities’.  Journal of Belgian History 45 (4) : 40.

VanSledright, BA. (1998).  ‘On the importance of historical positionality to thinking about and teaching history’.  International Journal of Social Education 12 (2) : 1.

VanSledright, B; Limón, M. (2006).  ‘Learning and teaching social studies: A review of cognitive research in history and geography’.  Handbook of Educational Psychology . Alexander, PA, Winne, PH PH (eds.),   Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 545.

Virta, A. (2016).  ‘Whose history should be dealt with in a pluricultural context – immigrant adolescents’ approach’.  Intercultural Education 27 (4) : 377. DOI:  http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14675986.2016.1216950

Wertsch, JV. (1998).  Mind as Action . Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Wertsch, JV. (2000).  ‘Is it possible to teach beliefs, as well as knowledge about history?’.  Knowing, Teaching and Learning History: National and international perspectives . Stearns, P, Seixas, P; P and Wineburg, SS SS (eds.),   New York: New York University Press, pp. 38.

Wertsch, JV. (2002).  Voices of Collective Remembering . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Wertsch, JV. (2004).  ‘Specific narratives and schematic narrative templates’.  Theorizing Historical Consciousness . Seixas, P (ed.),   Toronto: University of Toronto Press, pp. 49.

Wertsch, JV. (2012).  ‘Texts of memory and texts of history’.  L 2 Journal 4 (1) : 9. DOI:  http://dx.doi.org/10.5070/L24110007

Wertsch, JV. (2017).  ‘Foreword to the special feature “Negotiating the nation: Young people, national narratives and history education”’.  London Review of Education 15 (2) : 149. DOI:  http://dx.doi.org/10.18546/LRE.15.2.02

Yeager, EA; Foster, SJ; Greer, J. (2002).  ‘How eighth graders in England and the United States view historical significance’.  The Elementary School Journal 103 (2) : 199. DOI:  http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/499723

Zanazanian, P. (2015).  ‘Historical consciousness and being Québécois: Exploring young English-speaking students’ interactions with Quebec’s master historical narrative’.  Canadian Ethnic Studies 47 (2) : 113. DOI:  http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/ces.2015.0013

Harvard-Style Citation

Åhsberg, C. (2024) 'Students’ views of historical significance – a narrative literature review', History Education Research Journal . 21(1) doi: 10.14324/HERJ.21.1.02

Show: Vancouver Citation Style | APA Citation Style

Vancouver-Style Citation

Åhsberg, C. Students’ views of historical significance – a narrative literature review. History Education Research Journal. 2024 2; 21(1) doi: 10.14324/HERJ.21.1.02

Show: Harvard Citation Style | APA Citation Style

APA-Style Citation

Åhsberg, C. (2024, 2 14). Students’ views of historical significance – a narrative literature review. History Education Research Journal 21(1) doi: 10.14324/HERJ.21.1.02

Show: Harvard Citation Style | {% trans 'Vancouver Citation Style' %}

Non Specialist Summary

This article has no summary

World Conference on Information Systems and Technologies

WorldCIST 2023: Intelligent Sustainable Systems pp 47–56 Cite as

Lessons from the Past: A Historical Literature Review on Cyber Resilience

• Muhammad Fakhrul Safitra   ORCID: orcid.org/0009-0008-9555-2321 13 ,
• Muharman Lubis   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-2973-9215 13 ,
• Hanif Fakhrurroja   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-2483-251X 13 , 14 &
• Yusuf Nugroho Doyo Yekti   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-8140-5485 13  
• Conference paper
• First Online: 08 March 2024

36 Accesses

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems ((LNNS,volume 828))

This study provides a thorough historical literature analysis of cyberresilience, concentrating on its evolution and the lessons it gives for the future. The authors track the emergence of resilience in the context of cybersecurity by studying a wide range of scholarly publications, research articles, and case studies. The examination reveals major milestones, contextual elements, framework integration, and methodology integration. A dynamic approach, interrelated perspectives, and different training programs are among the valuable insights that emerge. The findings emphasize the importance of collaboration, strong regulatory frameworks, emerging-area research, and ethical issues. Organizations may improve their cybersecurity resilience and contribute to a more secure digital ecosystem by implementing these ideas. This publication is a significant resource for scholars and practitioners looking to develop successful cyberresilience techniques and methodologies.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution .

Buying options

• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Building Cyber Resilience Threats, Enablers and Anticipation (2021). www.axa-research.org

Linkov I, Oliveira JMP (2020) Resilience and hybrid threats: security and integrity for the digital word. Springer. http://www.nato.int/science

Linkov I. Fundamental concepts of cyber resilience: introduction and overview motivation: why cyber resilience?

Google Scholar  

Segovia M, Rubio-Hernan J, Cavalli AR, Garcia-Alfaro J (2020) Cyber-resilience evaluation of cyber-physical systems. In: 2020 IEEE 19th international symposium on network computing and applications, NCA 2020, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Inc. https://doi.org/10.1109/NCA51143.2020.9306741

Wu G, Li M, Li ZS (2021) Resilience-based optimal recovery strategy for cyber-physical power systems considering component multistate failures. IEEE Trans Reliab 70(4):1510–1524. https://doi.org/10.1109/TR.2020.3025179

Article   Google Scholar  

Carayannis EG, Grigoroudis E, Rehman SS, Samarakoon N (2021) Ambidextrous cybersecurity: the seven pillars (7Ps) of cyber resilience. IEEE Trans Eng Manage 68(1):223–234. https://doi.org/10.1109/TEM.2019.2909909

Wisseman S (2015) Cyber security and cyber resiliency: it’s an evolution

Lai K-K, Lin M-L, Chang S-B, Hsu C-F (2007) The study of taxonomy and evolutional trends of relevant literatures on patent analysis. PICMET 2007 Proceedings, pp 22–30

Zhao P, Gu C, Ding Y, Liu H, Bian Y, Li S (2021) Cyber-resilience enhancement and protection for uneconomic power dispatch under cyber-attacks. IEEE Trans Power Deliv 36(4). https://doi.org/10.1109/TPWRD.2020.3038065g

Pratama RP, Harso Supangkat S (2021) Smart video surveillance system for level crossing: a systematic literature review. In: 8th international conference on ICT for smart society: digital twin for smart society, ICISS 2021—Proceeding. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Inc. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICISS53185.2021.9533222

Annarelli A, Palombi G (2021) Digitalization capabilities for sustainable cyber resilience: a conceptual framework. Sustainability (Switzerland) 13(23). https://doi.org/10.3390/su132313065

Pavlou PA, Sawy OAE (2010) The ‘third hand’: IT-enabled competitive advantage in turbulence through improvisational capabilities. Inf Syst Res 21(3):443–471. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.1100.0280

Safitra MF, Lubis M, Kurniawan MT, Alhari MI, Nuraliza H, Azzahra SF, Putri DP (2023) Green networking: challenges, opportunities, and future trends for sustainable development. In: Proceedings of the 2023 11th international conference on computer and communications management, pp 168–173

van der Kleij R, Leukfeldt R (2020) Cyber resilient behavior: integrating human behavioral models and resilience engineering capabilities into cyber security. In: Advances in intelligent systems and computing. Springer Verlag, pp 16–27. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-20488-4_2

Safitra MF, Lubis M, Kurniawan MT, Saedudin RR, Alhari MI (2023) Beyond efficiency: advancing sustainability in data centers through TIA-942 guidelines and case studies. In: Proceedings of the 2023 11th international conference on computer and communications management, pp 107–115

Tusaie K, Dyer J (2004) Resilience: a historical review of the construct. Holist Nurs Pract 1–8

Pavão J, Bastardo R, Carreira D, Rocha NP (2023) Cyber resilience, a survey of case studies. Proc Comput Sci 219:312–318. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2023.01.295

Maulana F, Fajri H, Safitra MF, Lubis M (2023) Unmasking log4j’s vulnerability: protecting systems against exploitation through ethical hacking and cyberlaw perspectives. In: 2023 9th international conference on computer and communication engineering (ICCCE). IEEE pp 311–316

Khan SK, Shiwakoti N, Stasinopoulos P, Chen Y (2020) Cyber-attacks in the next-generation cars, mitigation techniques, anticipated readiness and future directions. Accid Anal Prev 148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2020.105837

Ramachandran V, Cheeran A (2014) Improvement of energy efficiency of spectrum sensing algorithms for cognitive radio networks using compressive sensing technique. In: 2014 international conference on computer communication and informatics: ushering in technologies of tomorrow, today, ICCCI 2014, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Inc. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICCCI.2014.6921829

Li B, Lu R, Xiao G, Li T, Choo KKR (2022) Detection of false data injection attacks on smart grids: a resilience-enhanced scheme. IEEE Trans Power Syst 37(4):2679–2692. https://doi.org/10.1109/TPWRS.2021.3127353

De Crespigny M (2012) Building cyber-resilience to tackle threats. Netw Secur 2012(4):5–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1353-4858(12)70024-7

Kim S, Park KJ, Lu C (2022) A survey on network security for cyber-physical systems: from threats to resilient design. IEEE Commun Surv Tutor 24(3):1534–1573. https://doi.org/10.1109/COMST.2022.3187531

Alhazmi OH, Malaiya YK, Ray I (2007) Measuring, analyzing and predicting security vulnerabilities in software systems. Comput Secur 26(3):219–228. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cose.2006.10.002

Panda A, Bower A (2020) Cyber security and the disaster resilience framework. Int J Disaster Resil Built Environ 11(4):507–518. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJDRBE-07-2019-0046

Patel A, Roy S, Baldi S (2021) Wide-area damping control resilience towards cyber-attacks: a dynamic loop approach. IEEE Trans Smart Grid 12(4):3438–3447. https://doi.org/10.1109/TSG.2021.3055222

Ashok A, Govindarasu M, Wang J (2017) Cyber-physical attack-resilient wide-area monitoring, protection, and control for the power grid. Proc IEEE 105(7):1389–1407. https://doi.org/10.1109/JPROC.2017.2686394

Kim K, Kim JS, Jeong S, Park JH, Kim HK (2021) Cybersecurity for autonomous vehicles: review of attacks and defense. Comput Secur 103. Elsevier Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cose.2020.102150

Safitra MF, Lubis M, Fakhrurroja H (2023) Counterattacking cyber threats: A framework for the future of cybersecurity. Sustainability 15(18):13369

Cybersecurity and Financial System Resilience Report (2022). www.federalreserve.gov/aboutthefed.htm

Vessels L, Heffner K, Johnson D (2019) Cybersecurity risk assessment for space systems. In: Proceedings—2019 IEEE space computing conference, SCC 2019. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Inc, pp 11–19. https://doi.org/10.1109/SpaceComp.2019.00006

Gergen M et al (1999) Innovative methods resources for research. Publishing, and Teaching. www.public.asu

David RJ, Jones C, Croidieu G (2023) Putting categories in their place: a research agenda for theorizing place in category research. Strategic Organization, vol 21, no 1. SAGE Publications Ltd, pp 6–22. https://doi.org/10.1177/14761270231152955

Brown AP (2010) Qualitative method and compromise in applied social research. Qual Res 10(2):229–248. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794109356743

Ross R, Pillitteri V, Graubart R, Bodeau D, McQuaid R (2021) Developing cyber-resilient systems. Gaithersburg, MD. https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.800-160v2r1

Khan O, Estay DA (2015) Supply chain cyber-resilience: creating an agenda for future research. APA. www.timreview.ca

Llansó TH, Hedgecock DA, Pendergrass JA, Hopkins J (2021) The state of cyber resilience: now and in the future. www.jhuapl.edu/techdigest

Cybersecurity R, Resilience P, Hiller JS, Russell RS. Modalities for cyber security and privacy resilience: the NIST approach

Cyber resilience: twelve key controls to strengthen your security (2022)

Garcia-Dia MJ, DiNapoli JM, Garcia-Ona L, Jakubowski R, O’Flaherty D (2013) Concept analysis: resilience. Arch Psychiatr Nurs 27(6):264–270. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apnu.2013.07.003

Linkov I, Kott A (2019) Fundamental concepts of cyber resilience: introduction and overview. In: Cyber resilience of systems and networks. Springer International Publishing, pp 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-77492-3_1

Hollnagel E, Woods DD, Leveson N (2006) Resilience engineering: concept and percepts. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/50232053

Safitra MF, Lubis M, Kurniawan MT (2023) Cyber resilience: research opportunities. In: Proceedings of the 2023 6th international conference on electronics, communications and control engineering, pp 99–104

Tsen E, Ko RKL, Slapničar S, Ko R. An exploratory study of organizational cyber resilience, its precursors and outcomes

Bagchi S et al (2020) Vision paper: grand challenges in resilience: autonomous system resilience through design and runtime measures. IEEE Open J Comput Soc 1:155–172. https://doi.org/10.1109/OJCS.2020.3006807

Zhang D et al (2022) A comprehensive overview of modeling approaches and optimal control strategies for cyber-physical resilience in power systems. Renew Energy 189:1383–1406. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2022.03.096

Guo W, Qureshi NMF, Siddiqui IF, Shin DR (2022) Cooperative communication resource allocation strategies for 5g and beyond networks: a review of architecture, challenges and opportunities. J King Saud Univ Comput Inf Sci 34(10):8054–8078. King Saud bin Abdulaziz University. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jksuci.2022.07.019 .

Baral SK, Rath RC, Goel R, Singh T (2022) Role of digital technology and artificial intelligence for monitoring talent strategies to bridge the skill gap. In: 2022 international mobile and embedded technology conference, MECON 2022. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Inc, pp 582–587. https://doi.org/10.1109/MECON53876.2022.9751837

Onwubiko C (2020) Focusing on the recovery aspects of cyber resilience; focusing on the recovery aspects of cyber resilience

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Telkom University, Jl. Telekomunikasi, 40257, Indonesia

Muhammad Fakhrul Safitra, Muharman Lubis, Hanif Fakhrurroja & Yusuf Nugroho Doyo Yekti

National Research and Innovation Agency, Jl. M.H. Thamrin No. 8, Jakarta, 10340, Indonesia

Hanif Fakhrurroja

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Muhammad Fakhrul Safitra .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

School of Mathematics, Computer Science and Engineering, Liverpool Hope University, Liverpool, UK

Atulya K. Nagar

Namibia University of Science and Technology, Windhoek, Namibia

Dharm Singh Jat

School of Computer Science and Information Technology, Symbiosis University of Applied sciences, Indore, Madhya Pradesh, India

Durgesh Kumar Mishra

Global Knowledge Research Foundation, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, India

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2024 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this paper

Cite this paper.

Safitra, M.F., Lubis, M., Fakhrurroja, H., Yekti, Y.N.D. (2024). Lessons from the Past: A Historical Literature Review on Cyber Resilience. In: Nagar, A.K., Jat, D.S., Mishra, D.K., Joshi, A. (eds) Intelligent Sustainable Systems. WorldCIST 2023. Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems, vol 828. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-8111-3_5

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-8111-3_5

Published : 08 March 2024

Publisher Name : Springer, Singapore

Print ISBN : 978-981-99-8110-6

Online ISBN : 978-981-99-8111-3

eBook Packages : Intelligent Technologies and Robotics Intelligent Technologies and Robotics (R0)

Share this paper

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

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research