the importance of conducting a literature review

• +91 9884350006
• +1-972-502-9262
• [email protected]

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.

Importance Of Proofreading For Scientific Writing Methods and Significance

Statistical analyses of case-control studies

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

Comments are closed.

Service update: Some parts of the Library’s website will be down for maintenance on August 11.

Secondary menu

• Log in to your Library account
• Hours and Maps
• Connect from Off Campus
• UC Berkeley Home

Search form

Conducting a literature review: why do a literature review, why do a literature review.

• How To Find "The Literature"
• Found it -- Now What?

Besides the obvious reason for students -- because it is assigned! -- a literature review helps you explore the research that has come before you, to see how your research question has (or has not) already been addressed.

You identify:

• core research in the field
• experts in the subject area
• methodology you may want to use (or avoid)
• gaps in knowledge -- or where your research would fit in

It Also Helps You:

• Publish and share your findings
• Justify requests for grants and other funding
• Identify best practices to inform practice
• Set wider context for a program evaluation
• Compile information to support community organizing

Great brief overview, from NCSU

Want To Know More?

• Next: How To Find "The Literature" >>
• Last Updated: Apr 25, 2024 1:10 PM
• URL: https://guides.lib.berkeley.edu/litreview

A Guide to Literature Reviews

Importance of a good literature review.

• Conducting the Literature Review
• Structure and Writing Style
• Types of Literature Reviews
• Citation Management Software This link opens in a new window
• Acknowledgements

A literature review is not only a summary of key sources, but  has an organizational pattern which 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.

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].
• << Previous: Definition
• Next: Conducting the Literature Review >>
• Last Updated: Jul 3, 2024 3:13 PM
• URL: https://libguides.mcmaster.ca/litreview

Harvey Cushing/John Hay Whitney Medical Library

• Collections
• Research Help

YSN Doctoral Programs: Steps in Conducting a Literature Review

• Biomedical Databases
• Global (Public Health) Databases
• Soc. Sci., History, and Law Databases
• Grey Literature
• Trials Registers
• Data and Statistics
• Public Policy
• Google Tips
• Recommended Books
• Steps in Conducting a Literature Review

What is a literature review?

A literature review is an integrated analysis -- not just a summary-- of scholarly writings and other relevant evidence related directly to your research question.  That is, it represents a synthesis of the evidence that provides background information on your topic and shows a association between the evidence and your research question.

A literature review may be a stand alone work or the introduction to a larger research paper, depending on the assignment.  Rely heavily on the guidelines your instructor has given you.

Why is it important?

A literature review is important because it:

• Explains the background of research on a topic.
• Demonstrates why a topic is significant to a subject area.
• Discovers relationships between research studies/ideas.
• Identifies major themes, concepts, and researchers on a topic.
• Identifies critical gaps and points of disagreement.
• Discusses further research questions that logically come out of the previous studies.

APA7 Style resources

APA Style Blog - for those harder to find answers

1. Choose a topic. Define your research question.

Your literature review should be guided by your central research question.  The literature represents background and research developments related to a specific research question, interpreted and analyzed by you in a synthesized way.

• Make sure your research question is not too broad or too narrow.  Is it manageable?
• Begin writing down terms that are related to your question. These will be useful for searches later.
• If you have the opportunity, discuss your topic with your professor and your class mates.

2. Decide on the scope of your review

How many studies do you need to look at? How comprehensive should it be? How many years should it cover? 

• This may depend on your assignment.  How many sources does the assignment require?

3. Select the databases you will use to conduct your searches.

Make a list of the databases you will search. 

Where to find databases:

• use the tabs on this guide
• Find other databases in the Nursing Information Resources web page
• More on the Medical Library web page
• ... and more on the Yale University Library web page

4. Conduct your searches to find the evidence. Keep track of your searches.

• Use the key words in your question, as well as synonyms for those words, as terms in your search. Use the database tutorials for help.
• Save the searches in the databases. This saves time when you want to redo, or modify, the searches. It is also helpful to use as a guide is the searches are not finding any useful results.
• Review the abstracts of research studies carefully. This will save you time.
• Use the bibliographies and references of research studies you find to locate others.
• Check with your professor, or a subject expert in the field, if you are missing any key works in the field.
• Ask your librarian for help at any time.
• Use a citation manager, such as EndNote as the repository for your citations. See the EndNote tutorials for help.

Review the literature

Some questions to help you analyze the research:

• What was the research question of the study you are reviewing? What were the authors trying to discover?
• Was the research funded by a source that could influence the findings?
• What were the research methodologies? Analyze its literature review, the samples and variables used, the results, and the conclusions.
• Does the research seem to be complete? Could it have been conducted more soundly? What further questions does it raise?
• If there are conflicting studies, why do you think that is?
• How are the authors viewed in the field? Has this study been cited? If so, how has it been analyzed?

Tips: 

• Review the abstracts carefully.  
• Keep careful notes so that you may track your thought processes during the research process.
• Create a matrix of the studies for easy analysis, and synthesis, across all of the studies.
• << Previous: Recommended Books
• Last Updated: Jun 20, 2024 9:08 AM
• URL: https://guides.library.yale.edu/YSNDoctoral

• 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

Literature Review - what is a Literature Review, why it is important and how it is done

What are literature reviews, goals of literature reviews, types of literature reviews, about this guide/licence.

• Strategies to Find Sources
• Evaluating Literature Reviews and Sources
• Tips for Writing Literature Reviews
• Writing Literature Review: Useful Sites
• Citation Resources
• Other Academic Writings
• Useful Resources

Help is Just a Click Away

Search our FAQ Knowledge base, ask a question, chat, send comments...

Go to LibAnswers

 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. " - Quote from Taylor, D. (n.d) "The literature review: A few tips on conducting it"

Source NC State University Libraries. This video is published under a Creative Commons 3.0 BY-NC-SA US license.

What are the goals of creating a Literature Review?

• 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.

When do you need to write a Literature Review?

• When writing a prospectus or a thesis/dissertation
• When writing a research paper
• When writing a grant proposal

In all these cases you need to dedicate a chapter in these works to showcase what have been written about your research topic and to point out how your own research will shed a new light into these body of scholarship.

Literature reviews are also written as standalone articles as a way to survey a particular research topic in-depth. This type of literature reviews look at a topic from a historical perspective to see how the understanding of the topic have change through time.

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.
• Book review essays/ Historiographical review essays : This is a type of review that focus on a small set of research books on a particular topic " to locate these books within current scholarship, critical methodologies, and approaches" in the field. - LARR
• 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 . San Diego, CA: Plural Publishing.
• 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 . Malden, MA: Blackwell Pub.
• 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.

Guide adapted from "Literature Review" , a guide developed by Marisol Ramos used under CC BY 4.0 /modified from original.

• Next: Strategies to Find Sources >>
• Last Updated: Jul 3, 2024 10:56 AM
• URL: https://lit.libguides.com/Literature-Review

The Library, Technological University of the Shannon: Midwest

• Link to facebook
• Link to linkedin
• Link to twitter
• Link to youtube
• Writing Tips

5 Reasons the Literature Review Is Crucial to Your Paper

• 3-minute read
• 8th November 2016

People often treat writing the literature review in an academic paper as a formality. Usually, this means simply listing various studies vaguely related to their work and leaving it at that.

But this overlooks how important the literature review is to a well-written experimental report or research paper. As such, we thought we’d take a moment to go over what a literature review should do and why you should give it the attention it deserves.

What Is a Literature Review?

Common in the social and physical sciences, but also sometimes required in the humanities, a literature review is a summary of past research in your subject area.

Sometimes this is a standalone investigation of how an idea or field of inquiry has developed over time. However, more usually it’s the part of an academic paper, thesis or dissertation that sets out the background against which a study takes place.

There are several reasons why we do this.

Reason #1: To Demonstrate Understanding

In a college paper, you can use a literature review to demonstrate your understanding of the subject matter. This means identifying, summarizing and critically assessing past research that is relevant to your own work.

Reason #2: To Justify Your Research

The literature review also plays a big role in justifying your study and setting your research question . This is because examining past research allows you to identify gaps in the literature, which you can then attempt to fill or address with your own work.

Find this useful?

Subscribe to our newsletter and get writing tips from our editors straight to your inbox.

Reason #3: Setting a Theoretical Framework

It can help to think of the literature review as the foundations for your study, since the rest of your work will build upon the ideas and existing research you discuss therein.

A crucial part of this is formulating a theoretical framework , which comprises the concepts and theories that your work is based upon and against which its success will be judged.

Reason #4: Developing a Methodology

Conducting a literature review before beginning research also lets you see how similar studies have been conducted in the past. By examining the strengths and weaknesses of existing research, you can thus make sure you adopt the most appropriate methods, data sources and analytical techniques for your own work.

Reason #5: To Support Your Own Findings

The significance of any results you achieve will depend to some extent on how they compare to those reported in the existing literature. When you come to write up your findings, your literature review will therefore provide a crucial point of reference.

If your results replicate past research, for instance, you can say that your work supports existing theories. If your results are different, though, you’ll need to discuss why and whether the difference is important.

Share this article:

Post A New Comment

Got content that needs a quick turnaround? Let us polish your work. Explore our editorial business services.

5-minute read

Free Email Newsletter Template

Promoting a brand means sharing valuable insights to connect more deeply with your audience, and...

6-minute read

How to Write a Nonprofit Grant Proposal

If you’re seeking funding to support your charitable endeavors as a nonprofit organization, you’ll need...

9-minute read

How to Use Infographics to Boost Your Presentation

Is your content getting noticed? Capturing and maintaining an audience’s attention is a challenge when...

8-minute read

Why Interactive PDFs Are Better for Engagement

Are you looking to enhance engagement and captivate your audience through your professional documents? Interactive...

7-minute read

Seven Key Strategies for Voice Search Optimization

Voice search optimization is rapidly shaping the digital landscape, requiring content professionals to adapt their...

4-minute read

Five Creative Ways to Showcase Your Digital Portfolio

Are you a creative freelancer looking to make a lasting impression on potential clients or...

Make sure your writing is the best it can be with our expert English proofreading and editing.

Frequently asked questions

What is the purpose of a literature review.

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

• To familiarize yourself with the current state of knowledge on your topic
• To ensure that you’re not just repeating what others have already done
• To identify gaps in knowledge and unresolved problems that your research can address
• To develop your theoretical framework and methodology
• To provide an overview of the key findings and debates on the topic

Writing the literature review shows your reader how your work relates to existing research and what new insights it will contribute.

Frequently asked questions: Academic writing

A rhetorical tautology is the repetition of an idea of concept using different words.

Rhetorical tautologies occur when additional words are used to convey a meaning that has already been expressed or implied. For example, the phrase “armed gunman” is a tautology because a “gunman” is by definition “armed.”

A logical tautology is a statement that is always true because it includes all logical possibilities.

Logical tautologies often take the form of “either/or” statements (e.g., “It will rain, or it will not rain”) or employ circular reasoning (e.g., “she is untrustworthy because she can’t be trusted”).

You may have seen both “appendices” or “appendixes” as pluralizations of “ appendix .” Either spelling can be used, but “appendices” is more common (including in APA Style ). Consistency is key here: make sure you use the same spelling throughout your paper.

The purpose of a lab report is to demonstrate your understanding of the scientific method with a hands-on lab experiment. Course instructors will often provide you with an experimental design and procedure. Your task is to write up how you actually performed the experiment and evaluate the outcome.

In contrast, a research paper requires you to independently develop an original argument. It involves more in-depth research and interpretation of sources and data.

A lab report is usually shorter than a research paper.

The sections of a lab report can vary between scientific fields and course requirements, but it usually contains the following:

• Title: expresses the topic of your study
• Abstract: summarizes your research aims, methods, results, and conclusions
• Introduction: establishes the context needed to understand the topic
• Method: describes the materials and procedures used in the experiment
• Results: reports all descriptive and inferential statistical analyses
• Discussion: interprets and evaluates results and identifies limitations
• Conclusion: sums up the main findings of your experiment
• References: list of all sources cited using a specific style (e.g. APA)
• Appendices: contains lengthy materials, procedures, tables or figures

A lab report conveys the aim, methods, results, and conclusions of a scientific experiment . Lab reports are commonly assigned in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields.

The abstract is the very last thing you write. You should only write it after your research is complete, so that you can accurately summarize the entirety of your thesis , dissertation or research paper .

If you’ve gone over the word limit set for your assignment, shorten your sentences and cut repetition and redundancy during the editing process. If you use a lot of long quotes , consider shortening them to just the essentials.

If you need to remove a lot of words, you may have to cut certain passages. Remember that everything in the text should be there to support your argument; look for any information that’s not essential to your point and remove it.

To make this process easier and faster, you can use a paraphrasing tool . With this tool, you can rewrite your text to make it simpler and shorter. If that’s not enough, you can copy-paste your paraphrased text into the summarizer . This tool will distill your text to its core message.

Revising, proofreading, and editing are different stages of the writing process .

• Revising is making structural and logical changes to your text—reformulating arguments and reordering information.
• Editing refers to making more local changes to things like sentence structure and phrasing to make sure your meaning is conveyed clearly and concisely.
• Proofreading involves looking at the text closely, line by line, to spot any typos and issues with consistency and correct them.

The literature review usually comes near the beginning of your thesis or dissertation . After the introduction , it grounds your research in a scholarly field and leads directly to your theoretical framework or methodology .

A literature review is a survey of scholarly sources (such as books, journal articles, and theses) related to a specific topic or research question .

It is often written as part of a thesis, dissertation , or research paper , in order to situate your work in relation to existing knowledge.

Avoid citing sources in your abstract . There are two reasons for this:

• The abstract should focus on your original research, not on the work of others.
• The abstract should be self-contained and fully understandable without reference to other sources.

There are some circumstances where you might need to mention other sources in an abstract: for example, if your research responds directly to another study or focuses on the work of a single theorist. In general, though, don’t include citations unless absolutely necessary.

An abstract is a concise summary of an academic text (such as a journal article or dissertation ). It serves two main purposes:

• To help potential readers determine the relevance of your paper for their own research.
• To communicate your key findings to those who don’t have time to read the whole paper.

Abstracts are often indexed along with keywords on academic databases, so they make your work more easily findable. Since the abstract is the first thing any reader sees, it’s important that it clearly and accurately summarizes the contents of your paper.

In a scientific paper, the methodology always comes after the introduction and before the results , discussion and conclusion . The same basic structure also applies to a thesis, dissertation , or research proposal .

Depending on the length and type of document, you might also include a literature review or theoretical framework before the methodology.

Whether you’re publishing a blog, submitting a research paper , or even just writing an important email, there are a few techniques you can use to make sure it’s error-free:

• Take a break : Set your work aside for at least a few hours so that you can look at it with fresh eyes.
• Proofread a printout : Staring at a screen for too long can cause fatigue – sit down with a pen and paper to check the final version.
• Use digital shortcuts : Take note of any recurring mistakes (for example, misspelling a particular word, switching between US and UK English , or inconsistently capitalizing a term), and use Find and Replace to fix it throughout the document.

If you want to be confident that an important text is error-free, it might be worth choosing a professional proofreading service instead.

Editing and proofreading are different steps in the process of revising a text.

Editing comes first, and can involve major changes to content, structure and language. The first stages of editing are often done by authors themselves, while a professional editor makes the final improvements to grammar and style (for example, by improving sentence structure and word choice ).

Proofreading is the final stage of checking a text before it is published or shared. It focuses on correcting minor errors and inconsistencies (for example, in punctuation and capitalization ). Proofreaders often also check for formatting issues, especially in print publishing.

The cost of proofreading depends on the type and length of text, the turnaround time, and the level of services required. Most proofreading companies charge per word or page, while freelancers sometimes charge an hourly rate.

For proofreading alone, which involves only basic corrections of typos and formatting mistakes, you might pay as little as $0.01 per word, but in many cases, your text will also require some level of editing , which costs slightly more.

It’s often possible to purchase combined proofreading and editing services and calculate the price in advance based on your requirements.

There are many different routes to becoming a professional proofreader or editor. The necessary qualifications depend on the field – to be an academic or scientific proofreader, for example, you will need at least a university degree in a relevant subject.

For most proofreading jobs, experience and demonstrated skills are more important than specific qualifications. Often your skills will be tested as part of the application process.

To learn practical proofreading skills, you can choose to take a course with a professional organization such as the Society for Editors and Proofreaders . Alternatively, you can apply to companies that offer specialized on-the-job training programmes, such as the Scribbr Academy .

Ask our team

Want to contact us directly? No problem.  We  are always here for you.

• Email [email protected]
• Start live chat
• Call +1 (510) 822-8066
• WhatsApp +31 20 261 6040

Our team helps students graduate by offering:

• A world-class citation generator
• Plagiarism Checker software powered by Turnitin
• Innovative Citation Checker software
• Professional proofreading services
• Over 300 helpful articles about academic writing, citing sources, plagiarism, and more

Scribbr specializes in editing study-related documents . We proofread:

• PhD dissertations
• Research proposals
• Personal statements
• Admission essays
• Motivation letters
• Reflection papers
• Journal articles
• Capstone projects

Scribbr’s Plagiarism Checker is powered by elements of Turnitin’s Similarity Checker , namely the plagiarism detection software and the Internet Archive and Premium Scholarly Publications content databases .

The add-on AI detector is powered by Scribbr’s proprietary software.

The Scribbr Citation Generator is developed using the open-source Citation Style Language (CSL) project and Frank Bennett’s citeproc-js . It’s the same technology used by dozens of other popular citation tools, including Mendeley and Zotero.

You can find all the citation styles and locales used in the Scribbr Citation Generator in our publicly accessible repository on Github .

• Become Involved |
• Give to the Library |
• Staff Directory |
• UNF Library
• Thomas G. Carpenter Library

Conducting a Literature Review

Benefits of conducting a literature review.

• Steps in Conducting a Literature Review
• Summary of the Process
• Additional Resources
• Literature Review Tutorial by American University Library
• The Literature Review: A Few Tips On Conducting It by University of Toronto
• Write a Literature Review by UC Santa Cruz University Library

While there might be many reasons for conducting a literature review, following are four key outcomes of doing the review.

Assessment of the current state of research on a topic . This is probably the most obvious value of the literature review. Once a researcher has determined an area to work with for a research project, a search of relevant information sources will help determine what is already known about the topic and how extensively the topic has already been researched.

Identification of the experts on a particular topic . One of the additional benefits derived from doing the literature review is that it will quickly reveal which researchers have written the most on a particular topic and are, therefore, probably the experts on the topic. Someone who has written twenty articles on a topic or on related topics is more than likely more knowledgeable than someone who has written a single article. This same writer will likely turn up as a reference in most of the other articles written on the same topic. From the number of articles written by the author and the number of times the writer has been cited by other authors, a researcher will be able to assume that the particular author is an expert in the area and, thus, a key resource for consultation in the current research to be undertaken.

Identification of key questions about a topic that need further research . In many cases a researcher may discover new angles that need further exploration by reviewing what has already been written on a topic. For example, research may suggest that listening to music while studying might lead to better retention of ideas, but the research might not have assessed whether a particular style of music is more beneficial than another. A researcher who is interested in pursuing this topic would then do well to follow up existing studies with a new study, based on previous research, that tries to identify which styles of music are most beneficial to retention.

Determination of methodologies used in past studies of the same or similar topics.  It is often useful to review the types of studies that previous researchers have launched as a means of determining what approaches might be of most benefit in further developing a topic. By the same token, a review of previously conducted studies might lend itself to researchers determining a new angle for approaching research.

Upon completion of the literature review, a researcher should have a solid foundation of knowledge in the area and a good feel for the direction any new research should take. Should any additional questions arise during the course of the research, the researcher will know which experts to consult in order to quickly clear up those questions.

• << Previous: Home
• Next: Steps in Conducting a Literature Review >>
• Last Updated: Aug 16, 2024 10:00 AM
• URL: https://libguides.unf.edu/litreview

• Langson Library
• Science Library
• Grunigen Medical Library
• Law Library
• Connect From Off-Campus
• Accessibility
• Gateway Study Center

Email this link

Graduate student research support.

• Citation Management
• Literature Reviews

Writing a literature review

Useful books, citational justice / citation inclusivity.

• Graduate-level Writing Help
• Research Ethics & Integrity
• Collaborative Project Management
• Managing Research Data
• Data Storage and Backup
• Data Collection
• Qualitative Data
• Quantitative Data
• Sharing and Archiving Data
• Digital Humanities
• Mapping your Data (GIS)
• Data Visualization
• Systematic Reviews and Other Evidence Synthesis Methods
• Developing a Scholarly Identity
• Author Rights & Copyright
• Open Access & the Publishing Landscape
• Understanding Peer Review
• Publishing Ethics & Retractions
• Preparing your Thesis / Dissertations

There are a few strategies you can employ when writing a literature review. Depending on your research question and scope, you may organize your literature review chronologically, critically examining the evolution of a topic over time. Or you may organize it topically because there are several areas off which your research builds.

I like to use a Building a House metaphor. Your literature review is the foundation upon which you will construct your own analysis, and that foundation must be strong. You may need a few different rooms (sub-sections/topics) that examine related scholarship. And depending on the conclusions you form from your own empirical research, that foundation may need to be modified to incorporate the scholarship connected to your conclusions.

Our colleagues at the University of Arizona Libraries made this citational justice tutorial , which includes the video below. The video addresses how we, as scholars, can work to incorporate historically marginalized perspectives in our research.

• Citations as a tool for racial equity, inclusion, and justice From the Rockefeller Inclusive Science Initiative, this discusses how conscientiously citing works from BIPOC academics is just one of many ways to actively confront racial and ethnic disparities within STEMM, but it represents an important step towards inclusion, equity, and justice.
• Inclusive Citation, Inclusive Academy From Equity Unbound, this is an archived webinar discussing how might we modify our daily scholarship practices and interrogate them in order to improve our processes and move towards a more socially just academic environment.
• More Than Personal Communication: Templates For Citing Indigenous Elders and Knowledge Keepers An openly accessible article that introduces citation templates for Indigenous Elders and Knowledge Keepers.
• << Previous: Citation Management
• Next: Graduate-level Writing Help >>
• Last Updated: Sep 20, 2024 8:28 AM
• URL: https://guides.lib.uci.edu/graduate-student-support

Off-campus? Please use the Software VPN and choose the group UCIFull to access licensed content. For more information, please Click here

Software VPN is not available for guests, so they may not have access to some content when connecting from off-campus.

Literature Reviews - GSEP

• Getting Started
• Planning Your Review
• Searching the Literature
• Managing Your Research
• Writing the Review

What is a Literature Review?

A literature review offers a detailed examination of research connected to your project. It goes beyond summarizing by discussing how the literature engages with key themes and concepts relevant to your study. It provides context by looking at previous authors’ contributions, highlighting how these works relate to each other and to your own research. The review also identifies gaps in the existing knowledge that your research aims to address. Additionally, it explains why your study matters and how it contributes to ongoing academic discussions.

A literature review serves a crucial role in your research. It is not simply a collection of article summaries, but rather an integral part of your project that:

• Positions your research within the broader academic context.
• Establishes your credibility within your field.
• Shows how your work builds on, challenges, or diverges from previous studies.

A well-organized literature review should be directly related to your thesis or research question. It should:

• Summarize what is known and what remains uncertain in the field.
• Identify key debates or areas of disagreement in the literature.
• Highlight questions that still need further investigation.

Questions to consider when writing a literature review

• What gap or issue in the existing research does my study address?
• What conflicts, unresolved questions, or unexplored areas is my research tackling?
• How does my research challenge or build upon the work of others?
• What sources am I using (e.g., scholarly journals, books, official reports)?
• What discipline is my research aligned with (e.g., sociology, psychology, medicine)?
• Am I comparing how different sources address key concepts or questions?
• Do I evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of each source rather than simply summarizing?
• Have I included studies that present alternative viewpoints or contradict my argument?
• Next: Planning Your Review >>
• Last Updated: Sep 20, 2024 2:49 PM
• URL: https://infoguides.pepperdine.edu/c.php?g=1426458

Explore. Discover. Create.

Copyright ©  2022  Pepperdine University

• Short report
• Open access
• Published: 19 September 2024

Bundling implementation strategies supports outcome measure adoption in stroke rehabilitation: preliminary findings

• Lisa A. Juckett   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-8587-7172 1 ,
• Meredith Banhos 2 ,
• Mequeil L. Howard 1 ,
• Taylor Walters 1 ,
• L. Marissa Horn 1 ,
• Adam R. Kinney 3 &
• Lauren R. Wengerd 4  

Implementation Science Communications volume  5 , Article number:  102 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

1 Altmetric

Metrics details

Over 80% of people who experience a stroke present with residual impairment of the upper extremity, such as the shoulder, elbow, wrist, and hand. However, rarely do stroke rehabilitation practitioners (e.g., occupational therapists) use standardized outcome measures to objectively evaluate upper extremity function. Accordingly, the purpose of this project was to develop a bundle of implementation strategies that supports practitioners’ adoption of the Fugl-Meyer Assessment of the Upper Extremity in stroke rehabilitation practice.

We used tenets of Implementation Mapping to guide the development of our implementation strategy bundle. We partnered with one, large academic health system serving over 200 stroke patients annually through intensive rehabilitation care. Strategies were selected and developed through a multi-method process that included a review of the literature, qualitative input from our health system’s practitioners and managers, and expert consultation. We also specified the hypothesized implementation “mechanisms” our strategies intended to change. Practitioners’ adoption (yes/no) of the Fugl-Meyer Assessment was calculated by analyzing electronic health record documentation of the 6-month time frame before strategies were deployed compared to the 6-month time frame after deployment.

Practitioners were exposed to the following implementation strategies to support Fugl-Meyer adoption: conduct educational meetings, prepare outcome measure champions, provide equipment, develop training materials, and adapt documentation systems. In the 6-months before deployment of our implementation strategies, practitioners implemented the Fugl-Meyer with 14.8% of stroke patients. In the six months after deployment, adoption of the Fugl-Meyer increased to 73.8% ( p  < .001).

Conclusions

When systematically developed in collaboration with health system partners, a bundle of implementation strategies may support outcome measure adoption in stroke rehabilitation. Improving the use of standardized outcome measures is of paramount importance in stroke rehabilitation to objectively monitor patients’ progress or decline, to demonstrate the value of rehabilitation services for enhancing patients’ recovery, and to advocate for continued reimbursement for rehabilitation care. Future opportunities lie in further specifying the mechanisms through which implementation strategies are intended to work and how those mechanisms contribute to strategy effectiveness.

Trial registration

NCT registration: NCT04888416; May 06, 2021.

Peer Review reports

Contributions to the literature

Multi-method approaches, such as systematic literature searches, practitioner focus groups, and listening sessions, can strengthen the needs assessment phase of Implementation Mapping.

A combination – or bundle – of tailored implementation strategies is needed to support standardized outcome measure adoption in the stroke rehabilitation field, particularly strategies that target barriers at the individual- and inner-level contexts.

In addition to specifying the hypothesized “mechanisms” through which strategies work, opportunities lie in how these mechanisms contribute to strategy effectiveness.

Stroke is the leading cause of long-term disability in the United States, and over 80% of stroke survivors are living with impairments of the upper extremity [ 1 , 2 ]. Though not an exhaustive list, these impairments may manifest in the forms of neuromuscular weakness, altered sensory processing, abnormal motor planning, and poor coordination [ 3 , 4 ]. As a result of these impairments, stroke survivors are often referred to rehabilitation practitioners who can provide evidence-based interventions (e.g., constraint induced movement therapy, functional electrical stimulation) designed to maximize function of the upper extremity [ 5 ].

To understand the need for, and response to, evidence-based interventions for the post-stroke upper extremity, it is critical that rehabilitation practitioners implement standardized outcome measures of sensory and motor function. In stroke rehabilitation, standardized outcome measures such as the Fugl-Meyer Assessment of the Upper Extremity [ 6 ] are valid and reliable tools that objectively capture upper extremity performance. Findings from such tools can help communicate patients’ functional changes to other disciplines, healthcare systems, or payers, and also inform decisions about intervention plan modifications [ 7 ]. Indeed, the Fugl-Meyer Assessment (henceforth referred to as the “Fugl-Meyer”) has been recommended for use by international panels of stroke experts [ 8 ].

Despite the value of standardized outcome measures, seldom have they been consistently implemented in rehabilitation care [ 9 , 10 ], with rates of Fugl-Meyer Assessment use as low as 5% among practitioners in the United States [ 11 ]. Certainly, there is a pressing need to develop implementation strategies – or the methods and techniques that are used to support uptake of empirically-supported practices [ 12 ] – that can optimize outcome measure implementation by rehabilitation practitioners. Thus, the purpose of this paper is to provide a transparent description of how our team developed I-STROM ( I mplementation STR ategies for O utcome M easurement) – a bundle of implementation strategies to support Fugl-Meyer adoption in the stroke rehabilitation setting. We describe our collaborative development approach as well as preliminary findings after bundle deployment and considerations for future rehabilitation studies.

Study context

We partnered with one large health system in the Midwest region of the United States to implement the Fugl-Meyer Assessment with rehabilitation practitioners who evaluated and treated the post-stroke upper extremity. Annually, our partner health system served approximately 200 stroke survivors through intensive rehabilitation services (e.g., inpatient rehabilitation). All study activities described below were approved by the Institutional Review Board at The Ohio State University (#2021H0162) and align with the Standards for Reporting Implementation Studies (StaRI) statement [ 13 ].

Development of I-STROM – implementation mapping

We followed the tenets of Implementation Mapping to guide the development of I-STROM. In general, Implementation Mapping is a five-step approach to selecting and developing strategies that can improve the use of evidence-based practices (e.g., outcome measures) in real-world care [ 14 ]. The five steps of Implementation Mapping are listed in Table 1 alongside their general descriptions. Below, we describe our methods for carrying out each step during I-STROM’s development.

Step 1: Conduct a needs assessment

To conduct our needs assessment, we held one-on-one listening sessions with four rehabilitation managers at our partner health system to understand the potential sources of support they perceived their staff would need in order to consistently implement the Fugl-Meyer with their stroke patients. We also discussed opportunities to inform staff about the purposes of the I-STROM project and obtain their input on the types of strategies that should be deployed to enhance Fugl-Meyer implementation.

Step 2. Identify implementation determinants and outcomes

Prior to the launch of the present study, we conducted a scoping review that aimed to identify the determinants influencing outcome measure implementation in stroke rehabilitation. Implementation determinants – or barriers – that were identified through this scoping review process were vetted with rehabilitation practitioners in March-April 2021 via focus groups. We held three different focus groups with a total of 21 practitioners. During these focus groups, which were approximately 40-minutes in duration, practitioners identified simple and complex challenges that have hindered their efforts to implement standardized outcome measures. Lastly, to determine priority outcomes if I-STROM, we concluded each focus group by asking practitioners, “What do you want to change as a result of being part of this project?”

Focus group data were recorded and professionally transcribed in preparation for analysis. Using directed content analysis, two team members (professional doctoral students) coded barriers according to language from the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research [ 15 ], a typology of theory-derived constructs that can either support or impede implementation of evidence-based practices. Discrepancies in coding were resolved during weekly meetings with the team lead who had expertise coding qualitative data to implementation frameworks and taxonomies [ 16 , 17 ]. The team lead independently coded focus group data to the Implementation Outcomes Framework [ 18 ] to determine which outcome(s) were appropriate to measure before and after I-STROM deployment.

Step 3. Select implementation strategies

Selection of implementation strategies was conducted using a two-step process. First, we entered major implementation barriers identified from our scoping review into Waltz et al.’s barrier-to-strategy matching tool [ 19 ]. This barrier-to-strategy matching tool is an interactive spreadsheet that provides expert-endorsed strategies, from the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) taxonomy [ 20 ], perceived to overcome implementation barriers. Next, during subsequent focus groups with acute care, inpatient, and outpatient practitioners, we vetted these strategies to confirm or refute their relevance for supporting outcome measure adoption. Practitioners were also given the opportunity to suggest additional implementation strategies which were categorized according to the ERIC taxonomy. Focus group data were analyzed by means of directed content analysis (see procedures used in Step 2).

Step 4: produce and deploy implementation strategies and materials

Procedures completed in Steps 1–3 allowed us to confirm implementation strategies to be included in I-STROM for deployment at our partner health system. Development of materials were led by two research team members (LAJ and LRW) between December 2021 – March 2022. Strategies were then deployed in April 2022.

Step 5. Evaluate implementation outcomes

We collected data from our partner health system’s electronic health record database to conduct a preliminary evaluation of implementation outcomes. Electronic health record data was abstracted for stroke patients who had been referred to rehabilitation between October 1, 2021 – September 30, 2022. We then calculated Fugl-Meyer adoption (no vs. yes) during the 6-month periods pre- and post- I-STROM strategy deployment. Specifically, we calculated the proportion of stroke survivors referred to rehabilitation who completed the Fugl-Meyer (as documented by practitioners) and compared pre-post proportions using the McNemar test.

Listening sessions with managers indicated two primary themes. First, the rehabilitation department at our partner health system had encouraged practitioners to implement the Fugl-Meyer but had not systematically deployed health system-wide strategies to support adoption. Accordingly, our partners welcomed I-STROM to further promote outcome measure use by practitioners. Second, listening sessions revealed that the Fugl-Meyer was one of the most appropriate outcome measures to implement given that more time- and resource-intensive outcome measures would not be feasible. At the conclusion of these listening sessions, our health system partners identified two individuals to serve as early adopter “champions” who could enhance the implementation climate – or the perceived shared value – for using the Fugl-Meyer in routine practice. One champion was the lead practitioner on the stroke rehabilitation unit and could help coordinate the deployment of I-STROM activities. The other champion was perceived as a natural peer leader given their 15 + years of experience working with the stroke population and their familiarity with the health system infrastructure.

Step 2: identify implementation determinants and outcomes

Findings from our scoping review have been published elsewhere and identified major barriers to Fugl-Meyer implementation [ 21 ]. Focus group data with practitioners confirmed that the following six barriers from our scoping review were most salient to Fugl-Meyer use within their health system: lack of available resources , reduced access to information about the intervention or tool, lack of knowledge , decreased compatibility with routine workflow and resources, limited appropriateness based on patient needs (i.e., severely impaired patients in acute care), and minimal perceived relative advantage to having practitioners implement these outcome measures rather than other commonly used measurement tools (e.g., nine-hole peg test; dynamometry). Further, focus group participants expressed that their primary outcome of interest was to increase “adoption” (also known as “uptake” or “intentional use”) of the Fugl-Meyer as measured by practitioners’ documentation of Fugl-Meyer scores in stroke patients’ electronic health records.

Step 3: select implementation strategies

We entered these six implementation barriers into the barrier-to-strategy matching tool [ 19 ] which yielded a total of nine highly-recommended strategies to support implementation. During subsequent focus groups, practitioners confirmed that the following strategies were most relevant to support their implementation needs: conduct educational meetings, develop educational materials, and prepare outcome measure champions. However, practitioners also suggested two additional strategies to overcome implementation barriers: (1) modify the electronic health record systems to ease documentation of Fugl-Meyer scores and (2) provide standardized equipment to implement the Fugl-Meyer appropriately. Accordingly, the final version of I-STROM consisted of five implementation strategies, described below.

Step 4: produce and deploy implementation materials

Below we list I-STROM’s five implementation strategies and describe their production and deployment between December 2021 – April 2022. Figure 1 depicts these strategies, the barriers they intended to overcome, and the hypothesized mechanisms through which each strategy was intended to work [ 22 ].

Logic model to support Fugl-Meyer Assessment adoption. Dotted lines indicate associations between barriers and strategies as well as strategies and hypothesized mechanisms. Figure informed by the Implementation Research Logic Model [ 22 ]

Conduct educational meetings

A total of 11 rehabilitation practitioners – all of whom were occupational therapists – participated in a 90-minute, in-person educational session on Fugl-Meyer administration and interpretation. The session was led by an expert (LRW) in the Fugl-Meyer who previously had trained an international consortium of practitioners on Fugl-Meyer implementation. The in-person session was then augmented with recorded videos at the request of practitioners who preferred recorded material that could be accessed at their discretion rather than participating in “booster” in-person training sessions over time.

Develop educational materials

Educational materials included printed instructions for how to administer each item of the Fugl-Meyer, electronic training manuals (accessible via a QR code) that depicted the equipment to be used during Fugl-Meyer administration and how patients should be positioned, and videos demonstrating how to implement the Fugl-Meyer with two stroke survivors – one with severe upper extremity impairments and one with moderate impairments.

Prepare outcome measure champions

The primary responsibility of the primary champion was to identify and communicate implementation challenges and successes to the research team throughout the project period. Challenges and successes could be communicated in-person during semi-annual I-STROM meetings but were most commonly communicated through email correspondence. The other champion also received one 60-minute advanced training in Fugl-Meyer administration and was instructed to provide immediate guidance, as able, to frontline practitioners who needed assistance with implementing or interpreting results of the Fugl-Meyer Assessment.

Provide physical equipment

Practitioners were provided with identical Fugl-Meyer kits that were equipped with required items (e.g., pencil; index card) as well as a laminated QR code that, when scanned with a mobile device, retrieved an electronic version of the Fugl-Meyer training manual. Lastly, kits also contained a laminated scoring card and dry erase marker which allowed practitioners to manually document patients’ scores on each Fugl-Meyer item if they were not able to electronically document scores when administering the outcome measure in real-time.

Adapt documentation systems

Four web-conferencing calls were held between the research team, outcome measure champions, and our partner health system’s information technology (IT) department to modify the electronic health record system. These 30-minute conferencing calls allowed our champions to express their Fugl-Meyer documentation needs with feedback from the IT department to determine what system changes were feasible to execute and would reduce practitioners’ documentation burden.

Step 5: evaluate implementation outcomes

Prior to the deployment of I-STROM, 88 stroke patients were referred to intensive rehabilitation services in the 6-month time frame between October 1, 2021 – March 31, 2022. Of those referred, rehabilitation practitioners adopted the Fugl-Meyer with 13 stroke patients (14.8%). In the 6-months after I-STROM had been deployed (April 1, 2022 – September 30, 2022), 103 stroke patients were referred to intensive rehabilitation services, and practitioners adopted the Fugl-Meyer with 76 stroke patients (73.8%; p  < .001). See Fig. 2 for a timeline of all Implementation Mapping activities.

Timeline of Implementation Mapping activities

By working closely with our health system partners, our team applied methods from Implementation Mapping [ 14 ] and developed a bundle of implementation strategies to support Fugl-Meyer adoption. The five implementation strategies deployed in the present project were heavily informed by the needs and preferences expressed by our partner health system’s practitioners. Had we solely relied on our scoping review findings and the barrier-to-strategy matching tool recommendations, we likely would have deployed strategies that were mismatched to the needs prioritized by our partners. While we recommend that other teams review the literature for common implementation barriers and harness tools and resources to assist in strategy selection, strategies should ultimately be tailored to needs of local stakeholders [ 23 , 24 ]. We postulate that the significant changes we observed in practitioners’ implementation behaviors (from 14.8% to 73.8% adoption) were attributed to the systematic tailoring approach we used throughout strategy development.

Though preliminary findings from the present study suggest that I-STROM may have enhanced practitioners’ adoption of the Fugl-Meyer over a 6-month period, it remains unclear how these strategies led to desired results. In other words, while we prospectively specified potential mechanisms through which each of our strategies promoted adoption (Fig. 1 ), we did not directly measure the degree to which these mechanisms changed as a result of deploying our bundle of strategies. However, we can extrapolate from other empirical work and theory to potentially explain how each of our strategies “worked” to improve implementation. The development of educational materials, for instance, has enhanced practitioners’ knowledge and skills towards using evidence-based practices, particularly when those materials are coupled with educational meetings that increase practitioners’ perceived value of an intervention or tool [ 25 , 26 ]. We also prepared outcome measure champions to address the barriers of low relative advantage (i.e., the notion that a new practice is more advantageous than current practices) and a lack of knowledge and beliefs about the Fugl-Meyer’s value. Similarly, prior literature suggests that the use of champions, or those who perform “championing activities” (e.g., communicating across teams, providing guidance to peers), can help improve practitioner buy-in, foster positive attitudes, and enhance collective self-efficacy towards the use of a particular intervention or tool [ 27 , 28 ]. Nonetheless, future studies with larger samples should be designed to measure the mechanisms underlying I-STROM, thereby elucidating our understanding of why implementation strategies may – or may not – be effective.

Study limitations

Although our study makes a valuable contribution to the rehabilitation and implementation science bodies of literature, it is not without limitations. For instance, given that this was a pilot project with preliminary findings, we cannot make claims about the effectiveness of our strategies that were examined through an observational study design. Moreover, strategies were developed and deployed within one health system and only occupational therapy practitioners participated in I-STROM activities. Thus, while our results may not be fully transferrable to other health systems, our process of tailoring strategies to meet health systems’ needs may be replicable.

Consistent with prior literature, a combination of tailored implementation strategies is likely necessary to enhance outcome measure adoption, and such tailoring should be conducted in collaboration with health system partners. Further, while it is helpful to specify hypothesized mechanisms of implementation strategies, we must continue to expand our understanding of how these strategies “work” and within which contexts.

Availability of data and materials

The de-identified datasets collected throughout select Implementation Mapping activities are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Abbreviations

Implementation Strategies for Outcome Measurement

Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change

Hussain N, Alt Murphy M, Sunnerhagen KS. Upper limb kinematics in Stroke and healthy controls using target-to-target task in virtual reality. Front Neurol. 2018;9. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5954035/ . Cited 2020 Dec 2.

Virani Salim S, Alvaro A, Benjamin Emelia J, Bittencourt Marcio S, Callaway Clifton W, Carson April P, et al. Heart disease and stroke statistics—2020 update: a report from the American heart association. Circulation. 2020;141:e139-596.

CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Kristensen OH, Stenager E, Dalgas U. Muscle strength and poststroke hemiplegia: a systematic review of muscle strength assessment and muscle strength impairment. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2017;98:368–80.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Kantak SS, Zahedi N, McGrath RL. Task-dependent bimanual coordination after stroke: relationship with sensorimotor impairments. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2016;97:798–806.

Junior VADS, Santos M, de Ribeiro S, Maldonado NMIL. Combining proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation and virtual reality for improving sensorimotor function in stroke survivors: a randomized clinical trial. J Cent Nerv Syst Dis. 2019;11:1179573519863826.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Fugl-Meyer AR, Jääskö L, Leyman I, Olsson S, Steglind S. The post-stroke hemiplegic patient. 1. A method for evaluation of physical performance. Scand J Rehabil Med. 1975;7:13–31.

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Maritz R, Ehrmann C, Prodinger B, Tennant A, Stucki G. The influence and added value of a standardized assessment and reporting system for functioning outcomes upon national rehabilitation quality reports. Int J Qual Health Care. 2020;32:379–87.

Pohl J, Held JPO, Verheyden G, Alt Murphy M, Engelter S, Flöel A et al. Consensus-Based Core Set of Outcome Measures for Clinical Motor Rehabilitation After Stroke—A Delphi Study. Front Neurol. 2020;11. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fneur.2020.00875/full?report=reader . Cited 2020 Nov 23.

Bland MD, Sturmoski A, Whitson M, Harris H, Connor LT, Fucetola R, et al. Clinician adherence to a standardized assessment battery across settings and disciplines in a poststroke rehabilitation population. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2013;94:1048-e10531.

Colquhoun HL, Lamontagne M-E, Duncan EA, Fiander M, Champagne C, Grimshaw JM. A systematic review of interventions to increase the use of standardized outcome measures by rehabilitation professionals. Clin Rehabil. 2017;31:299–309.

Wengerd LR. Advancing Rehabilitation Research Through Characterization of Conventional Occupational Therapy for Adult Stroke Survivors with Upper Extremity Hemiparesis [Internet]. The Ohio State University; 2019. Available from: https://etd.ohiolink.edu/pg_10?::NO:10:P10_ETD_SUBID:183187 . Cited 2020 Sep 10.

Powell BJ, McMillen JC, Proctor EK, Carpenter CR, Griffey RT, Bunger AC, et al. A compilation of strategies for implementing clinical innovations in health and mental health. Med Care Res Rev. 2012;69:123–57.

Pinnock H, Barwick M, Carpenter CR, Eldridge S, Grandes G, Griffiths CJ, et al. Standards for reporting implementation studies (StaRI) Statement. BMJ. 2017;356:i6795.

Fernandez ME, ten Hoor GA, van Lieshout S, Rodriguez SA, Beidas RS, Parcel G et al. Implementation Mapping: Using Intervention Mapping to Develop Implementation Strategies. Front Public Health. 2019;7. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpubh.2019.00158/full . Cited 2020 Oct 15.

Damschroder LJ, Aron DC, Keith RE, Kirsh SR, Alexander JA, Lowery JC. Fostering implementation of health services research findings into practice: a consolidated framework for advancing implementation science. Implement Sci. 2009;4: 50.

Van Stan JH, Holmes J, Wengerd L, Juckett LA, Whyte J, Pinto SM, et al. Rehabilitation treatment specification system: identifying barriers, facilitators, and strategies for implementation in research, education, and clinical care. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2023;104:562–8.

Juckett LA, Bunger AC, Jarrott SE, Dabelko-Schoeny HI, Krok-Schoen J, Poling RM et al. Determinants of fall prevention guideline implementation in the home- and community-based service setting. Gerontologist. https://academic.oup.com/gerontologist/advance-article/doi/10.1093/geront/gnaa133/5905772 . Cited 2020 Nov 12.

Proctor E, Silmere H, Raghavan R, Hovmand P, Aarons G, Bunger A et al. Outcomes for implementation research: Conceptual Distinctions, Measurement Challenges, and Research Agenda.

Waltz TJ, Powell BJ, Fernández ME, Abadie B, Damschroder LJ. Choosing implementation strategies to address contextual barriers: diversity in recommendations and future directions. Implement Sci. 2019;14:42.

Powell BJ, Waltz TJ, Chinman MJ, Damschroder LJ, Smith JL, Matthieu MM, et al. A refined compilation of implementation strategies: results from the Expert recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) project. Implement Sci. 2015;10:21.

Juckett LA, Wengerd LR, Faieta J, Griffin CE. Evidence-based practice implementation in stroke rehabilitation: a scoping review of barriers and facilitators. Am J Occup Ther. 2020;74:p74012050501-14.

Article   Google Scholar  

Smith JD, Li DH, Rafferty MR. The implementation research logic model: a method for planning, executing, reporting, and synthesizing implementation projects. Implement Sci. 2020;15:84.

Powell BJ, Beidas RS, Lewis CC, Aarons GA, McMillen JC, Proctor EK, et al. Methods to improve the selection and tailoring of implementation strategies. J Behav Health Serv Res. 2017;44:177–94.

Powell BJ, Fernandez ME, Williams NJ, Aarons GA, Beidas RS, Lewis CC et al. Enhancing the impact of implementation strategies in healthcare: a research Agenda. Front Public Health. 2019;7. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6350272/ . Cited 2020 Jun 23.

Brunkert T, Simon M, Zúñiga F. Use of pain management champions to enhance guideline implementation by care workers in nursing homes. Worldviews Evidence-Based Nurs. 2021;18:138–46.

Forsetlund L, O’Brien MA, Forsén L, Mwai L, Reinar LM, Okwen MP et al. Continuing education meetings and workshops: effects on professional practice and healthcare outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD003030.pub3/full . Cited 2023 Dec 27.

Lewis CC, Klasnja P, Lyon AR, Powell BJ, Lengnick-Hall R, Buchanan G, et al. The mechanics of implementation strategies and measures: advancing the study of implementation mechanisms. Implement Sci Commun. 2022;3:114.

Morena AL, Gaias LM, Larkin C. Understanding the role of clinical champions and their impact on clinician behavior change: the need for causal pathway mechanisms. Front Health Serv. 2022;2: 896885.

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors extend their sincere gratitude to Amy R. Darragh, PhD, OTR/L, FAOTA, for her consultative support with study design and Lisa Sewell, MOT, OTR/L, for her guidance with chart review data extraction.

This research was supported in in part with an Implementation Research Grant (AOTF2021IRJUCKETT) funded by the American Occupational Therapy Foundation.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

School of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, Division of Occupational Therapy, The Ohio State University, 453 West 10th Avenue, Columbus, OH, 43210, USA

Lisa A. Juckett, Mequeil L. Howard, Taylor Walters & L. Marissa Horn

The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, OH, USA

Meredith Banhos

Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Veteran Affairs Rocky Mountain Mental Illness Research, Education and Clinical Center (MIRECC) for Suicide Prevention, University of Colorado, Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, CO, USA

Adam R. Kinney

Department of Neuroscience, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, OH, USA

Lauren R. Wengerd

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

LAJ conceptualized the study and was responsible for leading all study activities; MB served as our primary health system partner and assisted with data collection; MLH, TW, and LMH completed data analysis activities and assisted with manuscript preparation. ARK assisted with data analysis and manuscript preparation; and LRW assisted with leading implementation strategy development and deployment activities. All authors read, revised, and approved the manuscript’s final version.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lisa A. Juckett .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

All study activities described in this manuscript were approved by the Institutional Review Board at The Ohio State University (#2021H0162).

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

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

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Juckett, L.A., Banhos, M., Howard, M.L. et al. Bundling implementation strategies supports outcome measure adoption in stroke rehabilitation: preliminary findings. Implement Sci Commun 5 , 102 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s43058-024-00643-3

Download citation

Received : 24 April 2024

Accepted : 11 September 2024

Published : 19 September 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s43058-024-00643-3

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Implementation science
• Neurological rehabilitation
• Quality of health care

Implementation Science Communications

ISSN: 2662-2211

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

How do luxury jewelry brands create the ultimate online shopping experience? The role of web atmospherics

• Original Article
• Published: 19 September 2024

Cite this article

• Mariam Kaskas 1 &
• Philip J. Kitchen 1  

Explore all metrics

The best companies and enterprises react swiftly to abrupt marketplace and environmental change. Technology played a major role in one of the biggest changes, encouraging firms to move to conducting business online. However, creating a great online shopping experience was a huge challenge, especially for luxury companies whose customers expect not only high-end products but also personalized and distinctive experiences. Luxury jewelry businesses utilize several web atmospheric cues to maintain the luxury element while delivering the desired experience in an online setting. From a research perspective, it is important to know how these companies assess various cues and how that assessment affects utilization to comprehend how they organize the online experience to best suit client requirements and preferences. Thus, semi-structured interviews were conducted with executives from eight different luxury jewelry brand firms. Recorded interviews were transcribed, and NVivo was utilized to analyze findings and identify emerging themes. According to the findings, information, navigation, visual design, and layout are crucial cues employed to provide the intended online experience, whereas music is far less significant.

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

Access this article

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Source NVivo software

Source Authors

Explore related subjects

• Artificial Intelligence

Albarq, A.N. 2021. Effect of Web atmospherics and satisfaction on purchase behavior: Stimulus–organism–response model. Future Business Journal 7: 1–8.

Article   Google Scholar  

Askegaard, S., and Kjeldgaard, D. 2002. The water fish swim in?: Relations between marketing and culture in the age of globalization. In  Perspectives on marketing relationships  (pp. 13–35). Copenhagen: Karnov Group

Baker, J. 1986. The role of the environment in marketing services: The consumer perspective. The Services Challenge: Integrating for Competitive Advantage 1 (1): 79–84.

Google Scholar  

Batat, W. 2019. Experiential marketing: Consumer behavior, customer experience and the 7Es . Routledge.

Book   Google Scholar  

Bitner, M.J. 1992. Servicescapes: The impact of physical surroundings on customers and employees. Journal of Marketing 56 (2): 57–71.

Brinkmann, S., and Kvale, S. 2015. Interviews: Learning the craft of qualitative research interviewing . Sage publications.

Brunner-Sperdin, A., Scholl-Grissemann, U.S., and Stokburger-Sauer, N.E. 2014. The relevance of holistic website perception. How sense-making and exploration cues guide consumers' emotions and behaviors.  Journal of Business Research ,  67 (12), 2515–2522.

Chebat, J.C., C.G. Chebat, and D. Vaillant. 2001. Environmental background music and in-store selling. Journal of Business Research 54 (2): 115–123.

Chitturi, R., R. Raghunathan, and V. Mahajan. 2008. Delight by design: The role of hedonic versus utilitarian benefits. Journal of Marketing 72 (3): 48–63.

Clarke, V., and V. Braun. 2017. Thematic analysis. The Journal of Positive Psychology 12 (3): 297–298.

Darden, W.R., and B.J. Babin. 1994. Exploring the concept of affective quality: Expanding the concept of retail personality. Journal of Business Research 29 (2): 101–109.

Dauriz, L., Nathalie, R., and Nicola, S. 2014. Luxury shopping in the digital age. Perspectives on Retail and Consumers Goods. McKinsey , 3–4. https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/retail/ourinsights/luxury-shopping-in-the-digital-age

Deng, L., and M.S. Poole. 2010. Affect in web interfaces: A study of the impacts of web page visual complexity and order. Mis Quarterly 34 (4): 711–730.

Donovan, R.J., and J.R. Rossiter. 1982. Store atmosphere: An environmental psychology approach. Journal of Retailing 58: 34–57.

Dwivedi, Y.K., E. Ismagilova, D.L. Hughes, J. Carlson, R. Filieri, J. Jacobson, and Y. Wang. 2021. Setting the future of digital and social media marketing research: Perspectives and research propositions. International Journal of Information Management 59: 102168.

Eroglu, S.A., K.A. Machleit, and L.M. Davis. 2001. Atmospheric qualities of online retailing: A conceptual model and implications. Journal of Business Research 54 (2): 177–184.

Eroglu, S.A., K.A. Machleit, and L.M. Davis. 2003. Empirical testing of a model of online store atmospherics and shopper responses. Psychology and Marketing 20 (2): 139–150.

González, E.M., J.H. Meyer, and M.P. Toldos. 2021. What women want? How contextual product displays influence women’s online shopping behavior. Journal of Business Research 123 (2021): 625–641.

Guest, G., A. Bunce, and L. Johnson. 2006. How many interviews are enough? An experiment with data saturation and variability. Field Methods 18 (1): 59–82.

Guha, A., D. Grewal, P.K. Kopalle, M. Haenlein, M.J. Schneider, H. Jung, and G. Hawkins. 2021. How artificial intelligence will affect the future of retailing. Journal of Retailing 97 (1): 28–41.

Hirschman, E.C., and M.B. Holbrook. 1982. Hedonic consumption: Emerging concepts, methods, and propositions. Journal of Marketing 46: 92–101.

Ilieska, K. 2013. Marketing decision support system-as a factor for effective marketing management. Holistica Journal of Business and Public Administration

Karoulina, E., Gardner, M., Mullen, R., Ridoux, C. and Valen, G. 1999. Filling the gaps in online retailing: Analysis and recommendations on how to improve the online retailing environment. http://www2000.ogsm.Vanderbilt.edu/research/studentprojects/filling.gaps.online.retailing/

Kawaf, F., and S. Tagg. 2012. Online shopping environments in fashion shopping: An SOR based review. The Marketing Review 12 (2): 161–180.

Keller, K.L. 1993. Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based brand equity. Journal of Marketing 57 (1): 1–22.

Keller, K.L. 2009. Managing the growth tradeoff: Challenges and opportunities in luxury branding. Journal of Brand Management 16 (5): 290–301.

Kim, H., Y.J. Choi, and Y. Lee. 2015. Web atmospheric qualities in luxury fashion brand web sites. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management 19 (4): 384–401.

Kim, J.H., M. Kim, and S.J. Lennon. 2009. Effects of website atmospherics on consumer responses: Music and product presentation. Direct Marketing: An International Journal 3 (1): 4–19.

Kim, Y.K., and P. Sullivan. 2019. Emotional branding speaks to consumers’ heart: The case of fashion brands. Fashion and Textiles 6 (1): 1–16.

King, T., C. Dennis, and L.T. Wright. 2008. Myopia, customer returns and the theory of planned behaviour. Journal of Marketing Management 24 (1–2): 185–203.

Klaus, P.P. 2022. What matters most to ultra-high-net-worth individuals? Exploring the UHNWI luxury customer experience (ULCX). Journal of Product and Brand Management 31 (3): 368–376.

Kluge, P.N., J.A. Königsfeld, M. Fassnacht, and F. Mitschke. 2013. Luxury web atmospherics: An examination of homepage design. International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management 41 (11/12): 901–916.

Kotler, P. 1973. Atmospherics as a marketing tool. Journal of Retailing 49 (4): 48–64.

Kousi, S., G. Halkias, and F. Kokkinaki. 2023. Hedonic objects and utilitarian experiences: The overriding influence of hedonism in driving consumer happiness. Psychology & Marketing 40: 1634–1645.

Lee, W.J. 2020. A study on word cloud techniques for analysis of unstructured text data. The Journal of the Convergence on Culture Technology 6 (4): 715–720.

Liu, X., A.C. Burns, and Y. Hou. 2013. Comparing online and in-store shopping behavior towards luxury goods. International Journal of Retail, Distribution Management 41 (11/12): 885–900.

Maher, C., M. Hadfield, M. Hutchings, and A. De Eyto. 2018. Ensuring rigor in qualitative data analysis: A design research approach to coding combining NVivo with traditional material methods. International Journal of Qualitative Methods 17 (1): 1–13.

Manganari, E.E., G.J. Siomkos, and A.P. Vrechopoulos. 2009. Store atmosphere in web retailing. European Journal of Marketing 43 (9/10): 1140–1153.

Manlow, V., and K. Nobbs. 2013. Form and function of luxury flagships: An international exploratory study of the meaning of the flagship store for managers and customers. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An International Journal 17 (1): 49–64.

Martineau, P. 1958. The personality of the retail store. Harvard Business Review 36: 47–55.

Mathwick, C., N.K. Malhotra, and E. Rigdon. 2002. The effect of dynamic retail experiences on experiential perceptions of value: An Internet and catalog comparison. Journal of Retailing 78 (1): 51–60.

Mattila, A., and J. Wirtz. 2001. The moderating role of expertise in consumer evaluations of credence goods. International Quarterly Journal of Marketing 1 (4): 281–292.

McColl-Kennedy, J.R., L. Cheung, and E. Ferrier. 2015. Co-creating service experience practices. Journal of Service Management 26 (2): 249–275.

Mehrabian, A., and J.A. Russell. 1974. An approach to environmental psychology . Cambridge: The MIT Press.

Meyer, C., and A. Schwager. 2007. Understanding customer experience. Harvard Business Review 85 (2): 116.

Miles, M.B., and A.M. Huberman. 1994. Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook . London: Sage.

Neyman, J. 1992. On the two different aspects of the representative method: The method of stratified sampling and the method of purposive selection. In Breakthroughs in statistics: Methodology and distribution , 123–150. New York: Springer, New York.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Nistorescu, T., and C.M. Barbu. 2008. Retail store design and environment as branding support in the services marketing. Management and Marketing 6 (1): 11–17.

O’cass, A., and H. McEwen. 2004. Exploring consumer status and conspicuous consumption. Journal of Consumer Behaviour: An International Research Review 4 (1): 25–39.

Okonkwo, U. 2009. Sustaining the luxury brand on the Internet. Journal of Brand Management 16: 302–310.

Phophalia, M.S., M.K. Sharma, and S. Kastiya. 2022. Impact of Digital Developments on Jewelry Buying Behaviour. Towards Excellence 14 (1): 1468–1475.

Pranup, S. S., Nair, A. P., Kumar, A., Kumar, P. V. D., Takkar, S., Rakhra, M., and Aggarwal, S. 2022, May. Online jewelry application for predicting users buying habits. In 2022 second international conference on interdisciplinary cyber physical systems (ICPS) , 188–196. IEEE.

Puccinelli, N.M., R.C. Goodstein, D. Grewal, R. Price, P. Raghubir, and D. Stewart. 2009. Customer experience management in retailing: Understanding the buying process. Journal of Retailing 85 (1): 15–30.

Rose, S., N. Hair, and M. Clark. 2011. Online customer experience: A review of the business-to-consumer online purchase context. International Journal of Management Reviews 13 (1): 24–39.

Saunders, M.N.K., P. Lewis, and A. Thornhill. 2019. Research methods for business students , 8th ed. Harlow: Pearson.

Shankar, V., D. Grewal, S. Sunder, B. Fossen, K. Peters, and A. Agarwal. 2022. Digital marketing communication in global marketplaces: A review of extant research, future directions, and potential approaches. International Journal of Research in Marketing 39 (2): 541–565.

Soller, K. 2014, April 4. Luxury brands should sell their products online . Bloomberg.com. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-04-03/luxury-brands-should-sell-their-products-online

Vaccaro, V.L., and G.R. Iyer. 2005. Multichannel retailing and the internet: Prospects, problems, and strategic options. International Journal of Internet Marketing and Advertising 2 (3): 168–183.

Van Belleghem, S. 2020. The offer you can’t refuse: What if customers ask for more than an excellent service? Belgium: Lannoo Meulenhoff.

Vigneron, F., and L.W. Johnson. 2004. Measuring brand luxury perceptions. The Journal of Brand Management 11 (6): 484–508.

Vrechopoulos, A.P., R.M. O’keefe, G.I. Doukidis, and G.J. Siomkos. 2004. Virtual store layout: An experimental comparison in the context of grocery retail. Journal of Retailing 80 (1): 13–22.

Weathers, D., and I. Makienko. 2006. Assessing the relationships between e-tail success and product and website factors. Journal of Interactive Marketing 20 (2): 41–54.

Wiedmann, K.P., N. Hennigs, and A. Siebels. 2007. Measuring consumers’ luxury value perception: A cross-cultural framework. Academy of Marketing Science Review 2007 (7): 333–361.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

ICN Business School, Nancy, France

Mariam Kaskas & Philip J. Kitchen

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mariam Kaskas .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

This article has no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

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

See Table  1 .

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Kaskas, M., Kitchen, P.J. How do luxury jewelry brands create the ultimate online shopping experience? The role of web atmospherics. J Market Anal (2024). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41270-024-00346-7

Download citation

Revised : 08 May 2024

Accepted : 17 August 2024

Published : 19 September 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1057/s41270-024-00346-7

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Online shopping experience
• Web atmospheric cues
• Information
• Visual design
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

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

The PMC website is updating on October 15, 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• CBE Life Sci Educ
• v.21(3); Fall 2022

Literature Reviews, Theoretical Frameworks, and Conceptual Frameworks: An Introduction for New Biology Education Researchers

Julie a. luft.

† Department of Mathematics, Social Studies, and Science Education, Mary Frances Early College of Education, University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602-7124

Sophia Jeong

‡ Department of Teaching & Learning, College of Education & Human Ecology, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43210

Robert Idsardi

§ Department of Biology, Eastern Washington University, Cheney, WA 99004

Grant Gardner

∥ Department of Biology, Middle Tennessee State University, Murfreesboro, TN 37132

Associated Data

To frame their work, biology education researchers need to consider the role of literature reviews, theoretical frameworks, and conceptual frameworks as critical elements of the research and writing process. However, these elements can be confusing for scholars new to education research. This Research Methods article is designed to provide an overview of each of these elements and delineate the purpose of each in the educational research process. We describe what biology education researchers should consider as they conduct literature reviews, identify theoretical frameworks, and construct conceptual frameworks. Clarifying these different components of educational research studies can be helpful to new biology education researchers and the biology education research community at large in situating their work in the broader scholarly literature.

INTRODUCTION

Discipline-based education research (DBER) involves the purposeful and situated study of teaching and learning in specific disciplinary areas ( Singer et al. , 2012 ). Studies in DBER are guided by research questions that reflect disciplines’ priorities and worldviews. Researchers can use quantitative data, qualitative data, or both to answer these research questions through a variety of methodological traditions. Across all methodologies, there are different methods associated with planning and conducting educational research studies that include the use of surveys, interviews, observations, artifacts, or instruments. Ensuring the coherence of these elements to the discipline’s perspective also involves situating the work in the broader scholarly literature. The tools for doing this include literature reviews, theoretical frameworks, and conceptual frameworks. However, the purpose and function of each of these elements is often confusing to new education researchers. The goal of this article is to introduce new biology education researchers to these three important elements important in DBER scholarship and the broader educational literature.

The first element we discuss is a review of research (literature reviews), which highlights the need for a specific research question, study problem, or topic of investigation. Literature reviews situate the relevance of the study within a topic and a field. The process may seem familiar to science researchers entering DBER fields, but new researchers may still struggle in conducting the review. Booth et al. (2016b) highlight some of the challenges novice education researchers face when conducting a review of literature. They point out that novice researchers struggle in deciding how to focus the review, determining the scope of articles needed in the review, and knowing how to be critical of the articles in the review. Overcoming these challenges (and others) can help novice researchers construct a sound literature review that can inform the design of the study and help ensure the work makes a contribution to the field.

The second and third highlighted elements are theoretical and conceptual frameworks. These guide biology education research (BER) studies, and may be less familiar to science researchers. These elements are important in shaping the construction of new knowledge. Theoretical frameworks offer a way to explain and interpret the studied phenomenon, while conceptual frameworks clarify assumptions about the studied phenomenon. Despite the importance of these constructs in educational research, biology educational researchers have noted the limited use of theoretical or conceptual frameworks in published work ( DeHaan, 2011 ; Dirks, 2011 ; Lo et al. , 2019 ). In reviewing articles published in CBE—Life Sciences Education ( LSE ) between 2015 and 2019, we found that fewer than 25% of the research articles had a theoretical or conceptual framework (see the Supplemental Information), and at times there was an inconsistent use of theoretical and conceptual frameworks. Clearly, these frameworks are challenging for published biology education researchers, which suggests the importance of providing some initial guidance to new biology education researchers.

Fortunately, educational researchers have increased their explicit use of these frameworks over time, and this is influencing educational research in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields. For instance, a quick search for theoretical or conceptual frameworks in the abstracts of articles in Educational Research Complete (a common database for educational research) in STEM fields demonstrates a dramatic change over the last 20 years: from only 778 articles published between 2000 and 2010 to 5703 articles published between 2010 and 2020, a more than sevenfold increase. Greater recognition of the importance of these frameworks is contributing to DBER authors being more explicit about such frameworks in their studies.

Collectively, literature reviews, theoretical frameworks, and conceptual frameworks work to guide methodological decisions and the elucidation of important findings. Each offers a different perspective on the problem of study and is an essential element in all forms of educational research. As new researchers seek to learn about these elements, they will find different resources, a variety of perspectives, and many suggestions about the construction and use of these elements. The wide range of available information can overwhelm the new researcher who just wants to learn the distinction between these elements or how to craft them adequately.

Our goal in writing this paper is not to offer specific advice about how to write these sections in scholarly work. Instead, we wanted to introduce these elements to those who are new to BER and who are interested in better distinguishing one from the other. In this paper, we share the purpose of each element in BER scholarship, along with important points on its construction. We also provide references for additional resources that may be beneficial to better understanding each element. Table 1 summarizes the key distinctions among these elements.

Comparison of literature reviews, theoretical frameworks, and conceptual reviews

This article is written for the new biology education researcher who is just learning about these different elements or for scientists looking to become more involved in BER. It is a result of our own work as science education and biology education researchers, whether as graduate students and postdoctoral scholars or newly hired and established faculty members. This is the article we wish had been available as we started to learn about these elements or discussed them with new educational researchers in biology.

LITERATURE REVIEWS

Purpose of a literature review.

A literature review is foundational to any research study in education or science. In education, a well-conceptualized and well-executed review provides a summary of the research that has already been done on a specific topic and identifies questions that remain to be answered, thus illustrating the current research project’s potential contribution to the field and the reasoning behind the methodological approach selected for the study ( Maxwell, 2012 ). BER is an evolving disciplinary area that is redefining areas of conceptual emphasis as well as orientations toward teaching and learning (e.g., Labov et al. , 2010 ; American Association for the Advancement of Science, 2011 ; Nehm, 2019 ). As a result, building comprehensive, critical, purposeful, and concise literature reviews can be a challenge for new biology education researchers.

Building Literature Reviews

There are different ways to approach and construct a literature review. Booth et al. (2016a) provide an overview that includes, for example, scoping reviews, which are focused only on notable studies and use a basic method of analysis, and integrative reviews, which are the result of exhaustive literature searches across different genres. Underlying each of these different review processes are attention to the s earch process, a ppraisa l of articles, s ynthesis of the literature, and a nalysis: SALSA ( Booth et al. , 2016a ). This useful acronym can help the researcher focus on the process while building a specific type of review.

However, new educational researchers often have questions about literature reviews that are foundational to SALSA or other approaches. Common questions concern determining which literature pertains to the topic of study or the role of the literature review in the design of the study. This section addresses such questions broadly while providing general guidance for writing a narrative literature review that evaluates the most pertinent studies.

The literature review process should begin before the research is conducted. As Boote and Beile (2005 , p. 3) suggested, researchers should be “scholars before researchers.” They point out that having a good working knowledge of the proposed topic helps illuminate avenues of study. Some subject areas have a deep body of work to read and reflect upon, providing a strong foundation for developing the research question(s). For instance, the teaching and learning of evolution is an area of long-standing interest in the BER community, generating many studies (e.g., Perry et al. , 2008 ; Barnes and Brownell, 2016 ) and reviews of research (e.g., Sickel and Friedrichsen, 2013 ; Ziadie and Andrews, 2018 ). Emerging areas of BER include the affective domain, issues of transfer, and metacognition ( Singer et al. , 2012 ). Many studies in these areas are transdisciplinary and not always specific to biology education (e.g., Rodrigo-Peiris et al. , 2018 ; Kolpikova et al. , 2019 ). These newer areas may require reading outside BER; fortunately, summaries of some of these topics can be found in the Current Insights section of the LSE website.

In focusing on a specific problem within a broader research strand, a new researcher will likely need to examine research outside BER. Depending upon the area of study, the expanded reading list might involve a mix of BER, DBER, and educational research studies. Determining the scope of the reading is not always straightforward. A simple way to focus one’s reading is to create a “summary phrase” or “research nugget,” which is a very brief descriptive statement about the study. It should focus on the essence of the study, for example, “first-year nonmajor students’ understanding of evolution,” “metacognitive prompts to enhance learning during biochemistry,” or “instructors’ inquiry-based instructional practices after professional development programming.” This type of phrase should help a new researcher identify two or more areas to review that pertain to the study. Focusing on recent research in the last 5 years is a good first step. Additional studies can be identified by reading relevant works referenced in those articles. It is also important to read seminal studies that are more than 5 years old. Reading a range of studies should give the researcher the necessary command of the subject in order to suggest a research question.

Given that the research question(s) arise from the literature review, the review should also substantiate the selected methodological approach. The review and research question(s) guide the researcher in determining how to collect and analyze data. Often the methodological approach used in a study is selected to contribute knowledge that expands upon what has been published previously about the topic (see Institute of Education Sciences and National Science Foundation, 2013 ). An emerging topic of study may need an exploratory approach that allows for a description of the phenomenon and development of a potential theory. This could, but not necessarily, require a methodological approach that uses interviews, observations, surveys, or other instruments. An extensively studied topic may call for the additional understanding of specific factors or variables; this type of study would be well suited to a verification or a causal research design. These could entail a methodological approach that uses valid and reliable instruments, observations, or interviews to determine an effect in the studied event. In either of these examples, the researcher(s) may use a qualitative, quantitative, or mixed methods methodological approach.

Even with a good research question, there is still more reading to be done. The complexity and focus of the research question dictates the depth and breadth of the literature to be examined. Questions that connect multiple topics can require broad literature reviews. For instance, a study that explores the impact of a biology faculty learning community on the inquiry instruction of faculty could have the following review areas: learning communities among biology faculty, inquiry instruction among biology faculty, and inquiry instruction among biology faculty as a result of professional learning. Biology education researchers need to consider whether their literature review requires studies from different disciplines within or outside DBER. For the example given, it would be fruitful to look at research focused on learning communities with faculty in STEM fields or in general education fields that result in instructional change. It is important not to be too narrow or too broad when reading. When the conclusions of articles start to sound similar or no new insights are gained, the researcher likely has a good foundation for a literature review. This level of reading should allow the researcher to demonstrate a mastery in understanding the researched topic, explain the suitability of the proposed research approach, and point to the need for the refined research question(s).

The literature review should include the researcher’s evaluation and critique of the selected studies. A researcher may have a large collection of studies, but not all of the studies will follow standards important in the reporting of empirical work in the social sciences. The American Educational Research Association ( Duran et al. , 2006 ), for example, offers a general discussion about standards for such work: an adequate review of research informing the study, the existence of sound and appropriate data collection and analysis methods, and appropriate conclusions that do not overstep or underexplore the analyzed data. The Institute of Education Sciences and National Science Foundation (2013) also offer Common Guidelines for Education Research and Development that can be used to evaluate collected studies.

Because not all journals adhere to such standards, it is important that a researcher review each study to determine the quality of published research, per the guidelines suggested earlier. In some instances, the research may be fatally flawed. Examples of such flaws include data that do not pertain to the question, a lack of discussion about the data collection, poorly constructed instruments, or an inadequate analysis. These types of errors result in studies that are incomplete, error-laden, or inaccurate and should be excluded from the review. Most studies have limitations, and the author(s) often make them explicit. For instance, there may be an instructor effect, recognized bias in the analysis, or issues with the sample population. Limitations are usually addressed by the research team in some way to ensure a sound and acceptable research process. Occasionally, the limitations associated with the study can be significant and not addressed adequately, which leaves a consequential decision in the hands of the researcher. Providing critiques of studies in the literature review process gives the reader confidence that the researcher has carefully examined relevant work in preparation for the study and, ultimately, the manuscript.

A solid literature review clearly anchors the proposed study in the field and connects the research question(s), the methodological approach, and the discussion. Reviewing extant research leads to research questions that will contribute to what is known in the field. By summarizing what is known, the literature review points to what needs to be known, which in turn guides decisions about methodology. Finally, notable findings of the new study are discussed in reference to those described in the literature review.

Within published BER studies, literature reviews can be placed in different locations in an article. When included in the introductory section of the study, the first few paragraphs of the manuscript set the stage, with the literature review following the opening paragraphs. Cooper et al. (2019) illustrate this approach in their study of course-based undergraduate research experiences (CUREs). An introduction discussing the potential of CURES is followed by an analysis of the existing literature relevant to the design of CUREs that allows for novel student discoveries. Within this review, the authors point out contradictory findings among research on novel student discoveries. This clarifies the need for their study, which is described and highlighted through specific research aims.

A literature reviews can also make up a separate section in a paper. For example, the introduction to Todd et al. (2019) illustrates the need for their research topic by highlighting the potential of learning progressions (LPs) and suggesting that LPs may help mitigate learning loss in genetics. At the end of the introduction, the authors state their specific research questions. The review of literature following this opening section comprises two subsections. One focuses on learning loss in general and examines a variety of studies and meta-analyses from the disciplines of medical education, mathematics, and reading. The second section focuses specifically on LPs in genetics and highlights student learning in the midst of LPs. These separate reviews provide insights into the stated research question.

Suggestions and Advice

A well-conceptualized, comprehensive, and critical literature review reveals the understanding of the topic that the researcher brings to the study. Literature reviews should not be so big that there is no clear area of focus; nor should they be so narrow that no real research question arises. The task for a researcher is to craft an efficient literature review that offers a critical analysis of published work, articulates the need for the study, guides the methodological approach to the topic of study, and provides an adequate foundation for the discussion of the findings.

In our own writing of literature reviews, there are often many drafts. An early draft may seem well suited to the study because the need for and approach to the study are well described. However, as the results of the study are analyzed and findings begin to emerge, the existing literature review may be inadequate and need revision. The need for an expanded discussion about the research area can result in the inclusion of new studies that support the explanation of a potential finding. The literature review may also prove to be too broad. Refocusing on a specific area allows for more contemplation of a finding.

It should be noted that there are different types of literature reviews, and many books and articles have been written about the different ways to embark on these types of reviews. Among these different resources, the following may be helpful in considering how to refine the review process for scholarly journals:

• Booth, A., Sutton, A., & Papaioannou, D. (2016a). Systemic approaches to a successful literature review (2nd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage. This book addresses different types of literature reviews and offers important suggestions pertaining to defining the scope of the literature review and assessing extant studies.
• Booth, W. C., Colomb, G. G., Williams, J. M., Bizup, J., & Fitzgerald, W. T. (2016b). The craft of research (4th ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. This book can help the novice consider how to make the case for an area of study. While this book is not specifically about literature reviews, it offers suggestions about making the case for your study.
• Galvan, J. L., & Galvan, M. C. (2017). Writing literature reviews: A guide for students of the social and behavioral sciences (7th ed.). Routledge. This book offers guidance on writing different types of literature reviews. For the novice researcher, there are useful suggestions for creating coherent literature reviews.

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORKS

Purpose of theoretical frameworks.

As new education researchers may be less familiar with theoretical frameworks than with literature reviews, this discussion begins with an analogy. Envision a biologist, chemist, and physicist examining together the dramatic effect of a fog tsunami over the ocean. A biologist gazing at this phenomenon may be concerned with the effect of fog on various species. A chemist may be interested in the chemical composition of the fog as water vapor condenses around bits of salt. A physicist may be focused on the refraction of light to make fog appear to be “sitting” above the ocean. While observing the same “objective event,” the scientists are operating under different theoretical frameworks that provide a particular perspective or “lens” for the interpretation of the phenomenon. Each of these scientists brings specialized knowledge, experiences, and values to this phenomenon, and these influence the interpretation of the phenomenon. The scientists’ theoretical frameworks influence how they design and carry out their studies and interpret their data.

Within an educational study, a theoretical framework helps to explain a phenomenon through a particular lens and challenges and extends existing knowledge within the limitations of that lens. Theoretical frameworks are explicitly stated by an educational researcher in the paper’s framework, theory, or relevant literature section. The framework shapes the types of questions asked, guides the method by which data are collected and analyzed, and informs the discussion of the results of the study. It also reveals the researcher’s subjectivities, for example, values, social experience, and viewpoint ( Allen, 2017 ). It is essential that a novice researcher learn to explicitly state a theoretical framework, because all research questions are being asked from the researcher’s implicit or explicit assumptions of a phenomenon of interest ( Schwandt, 2000 ).

Selecting Theoretical Frameworks

Theoretical frameworks are one of the most contemplated elements in our work in educational research. In this section, we share three important considerations for new scholars selecting a theoretical framework.

The first step in identifying a theoretical framework involves reflecting on the phenomenon within the study and the assumptions aligned with the phenomenon. The phenomenon involves the studied event. There are many possibilities, for example, student learning, instructional approach, or group organization. A researcher holds assumptions about how the phenomenon will be effected, influenced, changed, or portrayed. It is ultimately the researcher’s assumption(s) about the phenomenon that aligns with a theoretical framework. An example can help illustrate how a researcher’s reflection on the phenomenon and acknowledgment of assumptions can result in the identification of a theoretical framework.

In our example, a biology education researcher may be interested in exploring how students’ learning of difficult biological concepts can be supported by the interactions of group members. The phenomenon of interest is the interactions among the peers, and the researcher assumes that more knowledgeable students are important in supporting the learning of the group. As a result, the researcher may draw on Vygotsky’s (1978) sociocultural theory of learning and development that is focused on the phenomenon of student learning in a social setting. This theory posits the critical nature of interactions among students and between students and teachers in the process of building knowledge. A researcher drawing upon this framework holds the assumption that learning is a dynamic social process involving questions and explanations among students in the classroom and that more knowledgeable peers play an important part in the process of building conceptual knowledge.

It is important to state at this point that there are many different theoretical frameworks. Some frameworks focus on learning and knowing, while other theoretical frameworks focus on equity, empowerment, or discourse. Some frameworks are well articulated, and others are still being refined. For a new researcher, it can be challenging to find a theoretical framework. Two of the best ways to look for theoretical frameworks is through published works that highlight different frameworks.

When a theoretical framework is selected, it should clearly connect to all parts of the study. The framework should augment the study by adding a perspective that provides greater insights into the phenomenon. It should clearly align with the studies described in the literature review. For instance, a framework focused on learning would correspond to research that reported different learning outcomes for similar studies. The methods for data collection and analysis should also correspond to the framework. For instance, a study about instructional interventions could use a theoretical framework concerned with learning and could collect data about the effect of the intervention on what is learned. When the data are analyzed, the theoretical framework should provide added meaning to the findings, and the findings should align with the theoretical framework.

A study by Jensen and Lawson (2011) provides an example of how a theoretical framework connects different parts of the study. They compared undergraduate biology students in heterogeneous and homogeneous groups over the course of a semester. Jensen and Lawson (2011) assumed that learning involved collaboration and more knowledgeable peers, which made Vygotsky’s (1978) theory a good fit for their study. They predicted that students in heterogeneous groups would experience greater improvement in their reasoning abilities and science achievements with much of the learning guided by the more knowledgeable peers.

In the enactment of the study, they collected data about the instruction in traditional and inquiry-oriented classes, while the students worked in homogeneous or heterogeneous groups. To determine the effect of working in groups, the authors also measured students’ reasoning abilities and achievement. Each data-collection and analysis decision connected to understanding the influence of collaborative work.

Their findings highlighted aspects of Vygotsky’s (1978) theory of learning. One finding, for instance, posited that inquiry instruction, as a whole, resulted in reasoning and achievement gains. This links to Vygotsky (1978) , because inquiry instruction involves interactions among group members. A more nuanced finding was that group composition had a conditional effect. Heterogeneous groups performed better with more traditional and didactic instruction, regardless of the reasoning ability of the group members. Homogeneous groups worked better during interaction-rich activities for students with low reasoning ability. The authors attributed the variation to the different types of helping behaviors of students. High-performing students provided the answers, while students with low reasoning ability had to work collectively through the material. In terms of Vygotsky (1978) , this finding provided new insights into the learning context in which productive interactions can occur for students.

Another consideration in the selection and use of a theoretical framework pertains to its orientation to the study. This can result in the theoretical framework prioritizing individuals, institutions, and/or policies ( Anfara and Mertz, 2014 ). Frameworks that connect to individuals, for instance, could contribute to understanding their actions, learning, or knowledge. Institutional frameworks, on the other hand, offer insights into how institutions, organizations, or groups can influence individuals or materials. Policy theories provide ways to understand how national or local policies can dictate an emphasis on outcomes or instructional design. These different types of frameworks highlight different aspects in an educational setting, which influences the design of the study and the collection of data. In addition, these different frameworks offer a way to make sense of the data. Aligning the data collection and analysis with the framework ensures that a study is coherent and can contribute to the field.

New understandings emerge when different theoretical frameworks are used. For instance, Ebert-May et al. (2015) prioritized the individual level within conceptual change theory (see Posner et al. , 1982 ). In this theory, an individual’s knowledge changes when it no longer fits the phenomenon. Ebert-May et al. (2015) designed a professional development program challenging biology postdoctoral scholars’ existing conceptions of teaching. The authors reported that the biology postdoctoral scholars’ teaching practices became more student-centered as they were challenged to explain their instructional decision making. According to the theory, the biology postdoctoral scholars’ dissatisfaction in their descriptions of teaching and learning initiated change in their knowledge and instruction. These results reveal how conceptual change theory can explain the learning of participants and guide the design of professional development programming.

The communities of practice (CoP) theoretical framework ( Lave, 1988 ; Wenger, 1998 ) prioritizes the institutional level , suggesting that learning occurs when individuals learn from and contribute to the communities in which they reside. Grounded in the assumption of community learning, the literature on CoP suggests that, as individuals interact regularly with the other members of their group, they learn about the rules, roles, and goals of the community ( Allee, 2000 ). A study conducted by Gehrke and Kezar (2017) used the CoP framework to understand organizational change by examining the involvement of individual faculty engaged in a cross-institutional CoP focused on changing the instructional practice of faculty at each institution. In the CoP, faculty members were involved in enhancing instructional materials within their department, which aligned with an overarching goal of instituting instruction that embraced active learning. Not surprisingly, Gehrke and Kezar (2017) revealed that faculty who perceived the community culture as important in their work cultivated institutional change. Furthermore, they found that institutional change was sustained when key leaders served as mentors and provided support for faculty, and as faculty themselves developed into leaders. This study reveals the complexity of individual roles in a COP in order to support institutional instructional change.

It is important to explicitly state the theoretical framework used in a study, but elucidating a theoretical framework can be challenging for a new educational researcher. The literature review can help to identify an applicable theoretical framework. Focal areas of the review or central terms often connect to assumptions and assertions associated with the framework that pertain to the phenomenon of interest. Another way to identify a theoretical framework is self-reflection by the researcher on personal beliefs and understandings about the nature of knowledge the researcher brings to the study ( Lysaght, 2011 ). In stating one’s beliefs and understandings related to the study (e.g., students construct their knowledge, instructional materials support learning), an orientation becomes evident that will suggest a particular theoretical framework. Theoretical frameworks are not arbitrary , but purposefully selected.

With experience, a researcher may find expanded roles for theoretical frameworks. Researchers may revise an existing framework that has limited explanatory power, or they may decide there is a need to develop a new theoretical framework. These frameworks can emerge from a current study or the need to explain a phenomenon in a new way. Researchers may also find that multiple theoretical frameworks are necessary to frame and explore a problem, as different frameworks can provide different insights into a problem.

Finally, it is important to recognize that choosing “x” theoretical framework does not necessarily mean a researcher chooses “y” methodology and so on, nor is there a clear-cut, linear process in selecting a theoretical framework for one’s study. In part, the nonlinear process of identifying a theoretical framework is what makes understanding and using theoretical frameworks challenging. For the novice scholar, contemplating and understanding theoretical frameworks is essential. Fortunately, there are articles and books that can help:

• Creswell, J. W. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (5th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage. This book provides an overview of theoretical frameworks in general educational research.
• Ding, L. (2019). Theoretical perspectives of quantitative physics education research. Physical Review Physics Education Research , 15 (2), 020101-1–020101-13. This paper illustrates how a DBER field can use theoretical frameworks.
• Nehm, R. (2019). Biology education research: Building integrative frameworks for teaching and learning about living systems. Disciplinary and Interdisciplinary Science Education Research , 1 , ar15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s43031-019-0017-6 . This paper articulates the need for studies in BER to explicitly state theoretical frameworks and provides examples of potential studies.
• Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research & evaluation methods: Integrating theory and practice . Sage. This book also provides an overview of theoretical frameworks, but for both research and evaluation.

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORKS

Purpose of a conceptual framework.

A conceptual framework is a description of the way a researcher understands the factors and/or variables that are involved in the study and their relationships to one another. The purpose of a conceptual framework is to articulate the concepts under study using relevant literature ( Rocco and Plakhotnik, 2009 ) and to clarify the presumed relationships among those concepts ( Rocco and Plakhotnik, 2009 ; Anfara and Mertz, 2014 ). Conceptual frameworks are different from theoretical frameworks in both their breadth and grounding in established findings. Whereas a theoretical framework articulates the lens through which a researcher views the work, the conceptual framework is often more mechanistic and malleable.

Conceptual frameworks are broader, encompassing both established theories (i.e., theoretical frameworks) and the researchers’ own emergent ideas. Emergent ideas, for example, may be rooted in informal and/or unpublished observations from experience. These emergent ideas would not be considered a “theory” if they are not yet tested, supported by systematically collected evidence, and peer reviewed. However, they do still play an important role in the way researchers approach their studies. The conceptual framework allows authors to clearly describe their emergent ideas so that connections among ideas in the study and the significance of the study are apparent to readers.

Constructing Conceptual Frameworks

Including a conceptual framework in a research study is important, but researchers often opt to include either a conceptual or a theoretical framework. Either may be adequate, but both provide greater insight into the research approach. For instance, a research team plans to test a novel component of an existing theory. In their study, they describe the existing theoretical framework that informs their work and then present their own conceptual framework. Within this conceptual framework, specific topics portray emergent ideas that are related to the theory. Describing both frameworks allows readers to better understand the researchers’ assumptions, orientations, and understanding of concepts being investigated. For example, Connolly et al. (2018) included a conceptual framework that described how they applied a theoretical framework of social cognitive career theory (SCCT) to their study on teaching programs for doctoral students. In their conceptual framework, the authors described SCCT, explained how it applied to the investigation, and drew upon results from previous studies to justify the proposed connections between the theory and their emergent ideas.

In some cases, authors may be able to sufficiently describe their conceptualization of the phenomenon under study in an introduction alone, without a separate conceptual framework section. However, incomplete descriptions of how the researchers conceptualize the components of the study may limit the significance of the study by making the research less intelligible to readers. This is especially problematic when studying topics in which researchers use the same terms for different constructs or different terms for similar and overlapping constructs (e.g., inquiry, teacher beliefs, pedagogical content knowledge, or active learning). Authors must describe their conceptualization of a construct if the research is to be understandable and useful.

There are some key areas to consider regarding the inclusion of a conceptual framework in a study. To begin with, it is important to recognize that conceptual frameworks are constructed by the researchers conducting the study ( Rocco and Plakhotnik, 2009 ; Maxwell, 2012 ). This is different from theoretical frameworks that are often taken from established literature. Researchers should bring together ideas from the literature, but they may be influenced by their own experiences as a student and/or instructor, the shared experiences of others, or thought experiments as they construct a description, model, or representation of their understanding of the phenomenon under study. This is an exercise in intellectual organization and clarity that often considers what is learned, known, and experienced. The conceptual framework makes these constructs explicitly visible to readers, who may have different understandings of the phenomenon based on their prior knowledge and experience. There is no single method to go about this intellectual work.

Reeves et al. (2016) is an example of an article that proposed a conceptual framework about graduate teaching assistant professional development evaluation and research. The authors used existing literature to create a novel framework that filled a gap in current research and practice related to the training of graduate teaching assistants. This conceptual framework can guide the systematic collection of data by other researchers because the framework describes the relationships among various factors that influence teaching and learning. The Reeves et al. (2016) conceptual framework may be modified as additional data are collected and analyzed by other researchers. This is not uncommon, as conceptual frameworks can serve as catalysts for concerted research efforts that systematically explore a phenomenon (e.g., Reynolds et al. , 2012 ; Brownell and Kloser, 2015 ).

Sabel et al. (2017) used a conceptual framework in their exploration of how scaffolds, an external factor, interact with internal factors to support student learning. Their conceptual framework integrated principles from two theoretical frameworks, self-regulated learning and metacognition, to illustrate how the research team conceptualized students’ use of scaffolds in their learning ( Figure 1 ). Sabel et al. (2017) created this model using their interpretations of these two frameworks in the context of their teaching.

Conceptual framework from Sabel et al. (2017) .

A conceptual framework should describe the relationship among components of the investigation ( Anfara and Mertz, 2014 ). These relationships should guide the researcher’s methods of approaching the study ( Miles et al. , 2014 ) and inform both the data to be collected and how those data should be analyzed. Explicitly describing the connections among the ideas allows the researcher to justify the importance of the study and the rigor of the research design. Just as importantly, these frameworks help readers understand why certain components of a system were not explored in the study. This is a challenge in education research, which is rooted in complex environments with many variables that are difficult to control.

For example, Sabel et al. (2017) stated: “Scaffolds, such as enhanced answer keys and reflection questions, can help students and instructors bridge the external and internal factors and support learning” (p. 3). They connected the scaffolds in the study to the three dimensions of metacognition and the eventual transformation of existing ideas into new or revised ideas. Their framework provides a rationale for focusing on how students use two different scaffolds, and not on other factors that may influence a student’s success (self-efficacy, use of active learning, exam format, etc.).

In constructing conceptual frameworks, researchers should address needed areas of study and/or contradictions discovered in literature reviews. By attending to these areas, researchers can strengthen their arguments for the importance of a study. For instance, conceptual frameworks can address how the current study will fill gaps in the research, resolve contradictions in existing literature, or suggest a new area of study. While a literature review describes what is known and not known about the phenomenon, the conceptual framework leverages these gaps in describing the current study ( Maxwell, 2012 ). In the example of Sabel et al. (2017) , the authors indicated there was a gap in the literature regarding how scaffolds engage students in metacognition to promote learning in large classes. Their study helps fill that gap by describing how scaffolds can support students in the three dimensions of metacognition: intelligibility, plausibility, and wide applicability. In another example, Lane (2016) integrated research from science identity, the ethic of care, the sense of belonging, and an expertise model of student success to form a conceptual framework that addressed the critiques of other frameworks. In a more recent example, Sbeglia et al. (2021) illustrated how a conceptual framework influences the methodological choices and inferences in studies by educational researchers.

Sometimes researchers draw upon the conceptual frameworks of other researchers. When a researcher’s conceptual framework closely aligns with an existing framework, the discussion may be brief. For example, Ghee et al. (2016) referred to portions of SCCT as their conceptual framework to explain the significance of their work on students’ self-efficacy and career interests. Because the authors’ conceptualization of this phenomenon aligned with a previously described framework, they briefly mentioned the conceptual framework and provided additional citations that provided more detail for the readers.

Within both the BER and the broader DBER communities, conceptual frameworks have been used to describe different constructs. For example, some researchers have used the term “conceptual framework” to describe students’ conceptual understandings of a biological phenomenon. This is distinct from a researcher’s conceptual framework of the educational phenomenon under investigation, which may also need to be explicitly described in the article. Other studies have presented a research logic model or flowchart of the research design as a conceptual framework. These constructions can be quite valuable in helping readers understand the data-collection and analysis process. However, a model depicting the study design does not serve the same role as a conceptual framework. Researchers need to avoid conflating these constructs by differentiating the researchers’ conceptual framework that guides the study from the research design, when applicable.

Explicitly describing conceptual frameworks is essential in depicting the focus of the study. We have found that being explicit in a conceptual framework means using accepted terminology, referencing prior work, and clearly noting connections between terms. This description can also highlight gaps in the literature or suggest potential contributions to the field of study. A well-elucidated conceptual framework can suggest additional studies that may be warranted. This can also spur other researchers to consider how they would approach the examination of a phenomenon and could result in a revised conceptual framework.

It can be challenging to create conceptual frameworks, but they are important. Below are two resources that could be helpful in constructing and presenting conceptual frameworks in educational research:

• Maxwell, J. A. (2012). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage. Chapter 3 in this book describes how to construct conceptual frameworks.
• Ravitch, S. M., & Riggan, M. (2016). Reason & rigor: How conceptual frameworks guide research . Los Angeles, CA: Sage. This book explains how conceptual frameworks guide the research questions, data collection, data analyses, and interpretation of results.

CONCLUDING THOUGHTS

Literature reviews, theoretical frameworks, and conceptual frameworks are all important in DBER and BER. Robust literature reviews reinforce the importance of a study. Theoretical frameworks connect the study to the base of knowledge in educational theory and specify the researcher’s assumptions. Conceptual frameworks allow researchers to explicitly describe their conceptualization of the relationships among the components of the phenomenon under study. Table 1 provides a general overview of these components in order to assist biology education researchers in thinking about these elements.

It is important to emphasize that these different elements are intertwined. When these elements are aligned and complement one another, the study is coherent, and the study findings contribute to knowledge in the field. When literature reviews, theoretical frameworks, and conceptual frameworks are disconnected from one another, the study suffers. The point of the study is lost, suggested findings are unsupported, or important conclusions are invisible to the researcher. In addition, this misalignment may be costly in terms of time and money.

Conducting a literature review, selecting a theoretical framework, and building a conceptual framework are some of the most difficult elements of a research study. It takes time to understand the relevant research, identify a theoretical framework that provides important insights into the study, and formulate a conceptual framework that organizes the finding. In the research process, there is often a constant back and forth among these elements as the study evolves. With an ongoing refinement of the review of literature, clarification of the theoretical framework, and articulation of a conceptual framework, a sound study can emerge that makes a contribution to the field. This is the goal of BER and education research.

Supplementary Material

• Allee, V. (2000). Knowledge networks and communities of learning . OD Practitioner , 32 ( 4 ), 4–13. [ Google Scholar ]
• Allen, M. (2017). The Sage encyclopedia of communication research methods (Vols. 1–4 ). Los Angeles, CA: Sage. 10.4135/9781483381411 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• American Association for the Advancement of Science. (2011). Vision and change in undergraduate biology education: A call to action . Washington, DC. [ Google Scholar ]
• Anfara, V. A., Mertz, N. T. (2014). Setting the stage . In Anfara, V. A., Mertz, N. T. (eds.), Theoretical frameworks in qualitative research (pp. 1–22). Sage. [ Google Scholar ]
• Barnes, M. E., Brownell, S. E. (2016). Practices and perspectives of college instructors on addressing religious beliefs when teaching evolution . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 15 ( 2 ), ar18. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.15-11-0243 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Boote, D. N., Beile, P. (2005). Scholars before researchers: On the centrality of the dissertation literature review in research preparation . Educational Researcher , 34 ( 6 ), 3–15. 10.3102/0013189x034006003 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Booth, A., Sutton, A., Papaioannou, D. (2016a). Systemic approaches to a successful literature review (2nd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage. [ Google Scholar ]
• Booth, W. C., Colomb, G. G., Williams, J. M., Bizup, J., Fitzgerald, W. T. (2016b). The craft of research (4th ed.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Brownell, S. E., Kloser, M. J. (2015). Toward a conceptual framework for measuring the effectiveness of course-based undergraduate research experiences in undergraduate biology . Studies in Higher Education , 40 ( 3 ), 525–544. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2015.1004234 [ Google Scholar ]
• Connolly, M. R., Lee, Y. G., Savoy, J. N. (2018). The effects of doctoral teaching development on early-career STEM scholars’ college teaching self-efficacy . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 17 ( 1 ), ar14. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.17-02-0039 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cooper, K. M., Blattman, J. N., Hendrix, T., Brownell, S. E. (2019). The impact of broadly relevant novel discoveries on student project ownership in a traditional lab course turned CURE . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 18 ( 4 ), ar57. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.19-06-0113 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Creswell, J. W. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (5th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage. [ Google Scholar ]
• DeHaan, R. L. (2011). Education research in the biological sciences: A nine decade review (Paper commissioned by the NAS/NRC Committee on the Status, Contributions, and Future Directions of Discipline Based Education Research) . Washington, DC: National Academies Press. Retrieved May 20, 2022, from www7.nationalacademies.org/bose/DBER_Mee ting2_commissioned_papers_page.html [ Google Scholar ]
• Ding, L. (2019). Theoretical perspectives of quantitative physics education research . Physical Review Physics Education Research , 15 ( 2 ), 020101. [ Google Scholar ]
• Dirks, C. (2011). The current status and future direction of biology education research . Paper presented at: Second Committee Meeting on the Status, Contributions, and Future Directions of Discipline-Based Education Research, 18–19 October (Washington, DC). Retrieved May 20, 2022, from http://sites.nationalacademies.org/DBASSE/BOSE/DBASSE_071087 [ Google Scholar ]
• Duran, R. P., Eisenhart, M. A., Erickson, F. D., Grant, C. A., Green, J. L., Hedges, L. V., Schneider, B. L. (2006). Standards for reporting on empirical social science research in AERA publications: American Educational Research Association . Educational Researcher , 35 ( 6 ), 33–40. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ebert-May, D., Derting, T. L., Henkel, T. P., Middlemis Maher, J., Momsen, J. L., Arnold, B., Passmore, H. A. (2015). Breaking the cycle: Future faculty begin teaching with learner-centered strategies after professional development . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 14 ( 2 ), ar22. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.14-12-0222 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Galvan, J. L., Galvan, M. C. (2017). Writing literature reviews: A guide for students of the social and behavioral sciences (7th ed.). New York, NY: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315229386 [ Google Scholar ]
• Gehrke, S., Kezar, A. (2017). The roles of STEM faculty communities of practice in institutional and departmental reform in higher education . American Educational Research Journal , 54 ( 5 ), 803–833. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831217706736 [ Google Scholar ]
• Ghee, M., Keels, M., Collins, D., Neal-Spence, C., Baker, E. (2016). Fine-tuning summer research programs to promote underrepresented students’ persistence in the STEM pathway . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 15 ( 3 ), ar28. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.16-01-0046 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Institute of Education Sciences & National Science Foundation. (2013). Common guidelines for education research and development . Retrieved May 20, 2022, from www.nsf.gov/pubs/2013/nsf13126/nsf13126.pdf
• Jensen, J. L., Lawson, A. (2011). Effects of collaborative group composition and inquiry instruction on reasoning gains and achievement in undergraduate biology . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 10 ( 1 ), 64–73. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.19-05-0098 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kolpikova, E. P., Chen, D. C., Doherty, J. H. (2019). Does the format of preclass reading quizzes matter? An evaluation of traditional and gamified, adaptive preclass reading quizzes . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 18 ( 4 ), ar52. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.19-05-0098 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Labov, J. B., Reid, A. H., Yamamoto, K. R. (2010). Integrated biology and undergraduate science education: A new biology education for the twenty-first century? CBE—Life Sciences Education , 9 ( 1 ), 10–16. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.09-12-0092 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lane, T. B. (2016). Beyond academic and social integration: Understanding the impact of a STEM enrichment program on the retention and degree attainment of underrepresented students . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 15 ( 3 ), ar39. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.16-01-0070 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lave, J. (1988). Cognition in practice: Mind, mathematics and culture in everyday life . New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lo, S. M., Gardner, G. E., Reid, J., Napoleon-Fanis, V., Carroll, P., Smith, E., Sato, B. K. (2019). Prevailing questions and methodologies in biology education research: A longitudinal analysis of research in CBE — Life Sciences Education and at the Society for the Advancement of Biology Education Research . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 18 ( 1 ), ar9. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.18-08-0164 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lysaght, Z. (2011). Epistemological and paradigmatic ecumenism in “Pasteur’s quadrant:” Tales from doctoral research . In Official Conference Proceedings of the Third Asian Conference on Education in Osaka, Japan . Retrieved May 20, 2022, from http://iafor.org/ace2011_offprint/ACE2011_offprint_0254.pdf
• Maxwell, J. A. (2012). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage. [ Google Scholar ]
• Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., Saldaña, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis (3rd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage. [ Google Scholar ]
• Nehm, R. (2019). Biology education research: Building integrative frameworks for teaching and learning about living systems . Disciplinary and Interdisciplinary Science Education Research , 1 , ar15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s43031-019-0017-6 [ Google Scholar ]
• Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research & evaluation methods: Integrating theory and practice . Los Angeles, CA: Sage. [ Google Scholar ]
• Perry, J., Meir, E., Herron, J. C., Maruca, S., Stal, D. (2008). Evaluating two approaches to helping college students understand evolutionary trees through diagramming tasks . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 7 ( 2 ), 193–201. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.07-01-0007 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W., Gertzog, W. A. (1982). Accommodation of a scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change . Science Education , 66 ( 2 ), 211–227. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ravitch, S. M., Riggan, M. (2016). Reason & rigor: How conceptual frameworks guide research . Los Angeles, CA: Sage. [ Google Scholar ]
• Reeves, T. D., Marbach-Ad, G., Miller, K. R., Ridgway, J., Gardner, G. E., Schussler, E. E., Wischusen, E. W. (2016). A conceptual framework for graduate teaching assistant professional development evaluation and research . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 15 ( 2 ), es2. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.15-10-0225 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Reynolds, J. A., Thaiss, C., Katkin, W., Thompson, R. J. Jr. (2012). Writing-to-learn in undergraduate science education: A community-based, conceptually driven approach . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 11 ( 1 ), 17–25. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.11-08-0064 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rocco, T. S., Plakhotnik, M. S. (2009). Literature reviews, conceptual frameworks, and theoretical frameworks: Terms, functions, and distinctions . Human Resource Development Review , 8 ( 1 ), 120–130. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484309332617 [ Google Scholar ]
• Rodrigo-Peiris, T., Xiang, L., Cassone, V. M. (2018). A low-intensity, hybrid design between a “traditional” and a “course-based” research experience yields positive outcomes for science undergraduate freshmen and shows potential for large-scale application . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 17 ( 4 ), ar53. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.17-11-0248 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sabel, J. L., Dauer, J. T., Forbes, C. T. (2017). Introductory biology students’ use of enhanced answer keys and reflection questions to engage in metacognition and enhance understanding . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 16 ( 3 ), ar40. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.16-10-0298 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sbeglia, G. C., Goodridge, J. A., Gordon, L. H., Nehm, R. H. (2021). Are faculty changing? How reform frameworks, sampling intensities, and instrument measures impact inferences about student-centered teaching practices . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 20 ( 3 ), ar39. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.20-11-0259 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schwandt, T. A. (2000). Three epistemological stances for qualitative inquiry: Interpretivism, hermeneutics, and social constructionism . In Denzin, N. K., Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 189–213). Los Angeles, CA: Sage. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sickel, A. J., Friedrichsen, P. (2013). Examining the evolution education literature with a focus on teachers: Major findings, goals for teacher preparation, and directions for future research . Evolution: Education and Outreach , 6 ( 1 ), 23. https://doi.org/10.1186/1936-6434-6-23 [ Google Scholar ]
• Singer, S. R., Nielsen, N. R., Schweingruber, H. A. (2012). Discipline-based education research: Understanding and improving learning in undergraduate science and engineering . Washington, DC: National Academies Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Todd, A., Romine, W. L., Correa-Menendez, J. (2019). Modeling the transition from a phenotypic to genotypic conceptualization of genetics in a university-level introductory biology context . Research in Science Education , 49 ( 2 ), 569–589. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-017-9626-2 [ Google Scholar ]
• Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning as a social system . Systems Thinker , 9 ( 5 ), 2–3. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ziadie, M. A., Andrews, T. C. (2018). Moving evolution education forward: A systematic analysis of literature to identify gaps in collective knowledge for teaching . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 17 ( 1 ), ar11. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.17-08-0190 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]