The 5 Main Types of Literature Reviews for PhDs

Literature reviews are essential for research, but not all are the same. Explore five key types—argumentative, integrative, historical, systematic, and theoretical—that provide unique tools to tackle complex research questions effectively. Whether you’re a graduate student or seasoned researcher, understanding these distinctions can elevate your academic work.

Last updated 2025/01/04.

Literature reviews are the cornerstone of any academic endeavor, providing the foundation for research and helping scholars navigate the vast expanse of knowledge in their fields. As I embarked on my doctoral journey, I quickly realized how multifaceted and nuanced literature reviews can be. Through trial and error, along with guidance from academic mentors, I discovered five essential types of literature reviews that can significantly shape and enhance your research.

In this blog post, I aim to demystify these types by defining their purpose, methodology, and application. I draw on examples from my academic work, including a systematic literature review on mega-campaigns in tabletop role-playing games (TTRPGs) (León et al., 2023; León, Lipuma, & Cabobianco, 2024).

Let’s dive into the five main types of literature reviews and how they can transform your research:

The 5 Types of Literature Reviews

1. Argumentative Review

The argumentative review critically examines existing literature to support or refute a particular perspective. Analyzing the strengths and weaknesses of sources allows researchers to construct a compelling argument grounded in evidence. For instance, in my presentation at the 7th International Colloquium on Role-Playing Game Studies, I used an argumentative approach to highlight conflicting perspectives on the role of conflict and cooperation in TTRPG mega-campaigns (León et al., 2023). This type of review is particularly valuable when tackling controversial or underexplored topics, offering clarity and focus to the debate.

2. Integrative Review

An integrative review synthesizes diverse sources to identify gaps in knowledge and propose new perspectives. It is less about critique and more about building bridges between existing studies. For example, in our peer-reviewed article in Analog Game Studies (León et al., 2024), we used an integrative review to weave together insights on the narrative and ritualistic elements of TTRPG mega-campaigns, uncovering how these aspects contribute to player engagement. This type of review is ideal for interdisciplinary research, where connections between fields can illuminate new avenues for exploration.

3. Historical Review

A historical review provides a chronological account of a topic’s evolution, highlighting key milestones and shifts in understanding. This approach is practical for contextualizing research within its broader intellectual landscape. In studying the development of TTRPG mechanics and their cultural significance, a historical review helped trace how early role-playing games influenced contemporary storytelling practices. Such a review gives researchers a clearer picture of their topic’s trajectory and implications for future work.

4. Systematic Review

Systematic reviews are methodical and comprehensive, following a predefined protocol to analyze and synthesize all relevant literature on a specific question. This rigorous approach ensures objectivity and reproducibility. Our systematic literature review “Constitutive Factors of Mega-Campaigns in TTRPGs” on TTRPG mega-campaigns employed strict inclusion criteria and data extraction methods to evaluate studies on multidimensional characters and conflict resolution (León et al., 2024). This type of review is particularly beneficial for identifying patterns and drawing robust conclusions in fields with abundant research.

5. Theoretical Review

The theoretical review focuses on examining existing theories, frameworks, and models, often leading to the development of new hypotheses or theoretical perspectives. For instance, we explored various theories of narrative construction and player agency in our analysis of TTRPGs, proposing a new framework to understand how rituals and cooperation shape game dynamics. This type of review is essential for advancing theoretical knowledge and challenging conventional wisdom.

Bonus: Bibliometric Analysis

Bibliometric analysis is a quantitative approach to reviewing literature that involves the statistical analysis of publications, citations, and other bibliographic data. This method helps identify trends, influential works, and key contributors within a field. For instance, using bibliometric tools such as VOSviewer or CiteSpace, researchers can map the intellectual structure of a domain, pinpoint collaborations, and highlight emerging areas of study. In our exploration of “Trans-Disciplinary Communication and Persuasion in Convergence Research Approach” (León, Lipuma, Cabobianco, et al., 2024), a bibliometric analysis is discussed. This approach is useful for understanding the dynamics of a research field and positioning your work within it.

Additional readings

  • A Bibliometric Analysis of Research on ChatGPT in Education (Polat et al., 2024)
  • A Systematic Literature Review of Empirical Studies on Learning Analytics in Educational Games (Tlili et al., 2021)
  • Chatbots in Libraries: A Systematic Literature Review (Yan et al., 2023)
  • Creative Interdisciplinary Collaboration: A Systematic Literature Review (Moirano et al., 2020)
  • Gaming Disorder: A systematic review exploring the user-avatar relationship in videogames (Szolin et al., 2022)
  • How to Write a Systematic Review of the Literature (Pati & Lorusso, 2018)
  • Revisiones sistemáticas de la literatura. Qué se debe saber acerca de ellas (Manterola et al., 2013)

Example for Master’s Students

Navigating Transdisciplinary Communication: A Graduate Student’s Perspective (Pathikonda et al., 2024).

This paper presents the perspective of a graduate student newly introduced to Transdisciplinary Communication (TDC) and explores its practical applications. It addresses the core question: How can TDC be recognized, valued, and applied effectively to tackle complex challenges? TDC integrates diverse disciplinary insights, encourages collaboration, and improves research outcomes by fostering an inclusive environment that acknowledges all stakeholders.

The paper is framed through a Constructivist lens, focusing on three main aspects of TDC:

  1. The co-construction of knowledge through shared language enhances the integration of cross-disciplinary expertise.
  2. The role of social interaction, collaborative tools, and goal alignment in promoting effective teamwork.
  3. TDC is a dynamic, non-linear process that encourages innovation and knowledge synthesis.

Together, these elements demonstrate how TDC enriches STEM research by fostering diverse perspectives and addressing complex issues holistically.

The discussion begins by highlighting the significance of TDC in contemporary research, followed by insights from the graduate student’s evolving understanding of the approach. It then transitions into practical tools and strategies for applying TDC effectively, including structured methodologies and collaborative platforms. A detailed case example of co-design illustrates how engaging stakeholders early leads to impactful, integrated solutions. The paper concludes with reflections on the broader impacts of TDC beyond STEM, emphasizing its role in arts, humanities, and public policy and inviting participants to contribute their own experiences.

Conclusion

Understanding the nuances of these five types of literature reviews can significantly enhance the quality and impact of your research. Whether building an argument, synthesizing insights, tracing historical developments, conducting a systematic analysis, or engaging with theoretical frameworks, each type offers unique tools and perspectives to address your research questions.

Reflecting on my academic journey, I wish I had known about these distinctions earlier. They streamline the research process and help articulate a clear and focused narrative. So, which type of literature review sparks your curiosity or feels like a challenge you’re ready to tackle?

Sources

León, C., Cabobianco, M., & Lipuma, J. (2023, November 3). Factores Constitutivos de Mega-Campañas en TTRPG: Una Revisión Sistemática de la Literatura que Explora el Conflicto, la Cooperación, el Ritual, la Narrativa y los Personajes Multidimensionales [Presentación] [Conferencia académica virtual]. 7mo Coloquio Internacional de Estudios sobre Juegos de Rol, Institución Universitaria Pascual Bravo, Bogotá, Colombia. https://digitalcommons.njit.edu/stemresources/50/

León, C., Lipuma, J., & Cabobianco, M. O. (2024). Constitutive Factors of Mega-Campaigns in TTRPGs: A Systematic Literature Review [Peer-reviewed journal]. Analog Game Studies, 11(3), 30. /Research/Cultural and Social Studies. https://analoggamestudies.org/2024/10/constitutive-factors-of-mega-campaigns-in-ttrpgs-a-systematic-literature-review/

León, C., Lipuma, J., Cabobianco, M. O., & Meritano, E. (2024). Trans-Disciplinary Communication and Persuasion in Convergence Research Approach [Peer-reviewed journal]. International Journal of Human Sciences Research, 4(10), 1–20. /Research/Collaboration & Convergence. https://doi.org/10.22533/at.ed.5584102414036

Manterola, C., Astudillo, P., Arias, E., & Claros, N. (2013). Revisiones sistemáticas de la literatura. Qué se debe saber acerca de ellas. Cirugía Española, 91(3), 149–155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ciresp.2011.07.009

Moirano, R., Sánchez, M. A., & Štěpánek, L. (2020). Creative Interdisciplinary Collaboration: A Systematic Literature Review. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 35, 100626-. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2019.100626

Pathikonda, S., León, C., & Lipuma, J. (2024). Navigating Transdisciplinary Communication: A Graduate Student’s Perspective [Peer-reviewed journal]. Journal of Systemics, Cybernetics and Informatics, 22(6), 151–172. /Research/Collaboration & Convergence. https://doi.org/10.54808/JSCI.22.06.151

Pati, D., & Lorusso, L. N. (2018). How to Write a Systematic Review of the Literature. HERD, 11(1), 15–30. https://doi.org/10.1177/1937586717747384

Polat, H., Topuz, A. C., Yildiz, M., Taslibeyaz, E., & Kursun, E. (2024). A Bibliometric Analysis of Research on ChatGPT in Education. International Journal of Technology in Education, 7(1), 59–85.

Szolin, K., Kuss, D., Nuyens, F., & Griffiths, M. (2022). Gaming Disorder: A systematic review exploring the user-avatar relationship in videogames. In Computers in Human Behavior (Vol. 128). Elsevier Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2021.107124

Tlili, A., Chang, M., Moon, J., Liu, Z., Burgos, D., Chen, N.-S., & Kinshuk. (2021). A Systematic Literature Review of Empirical Studies on Learning Analytics in Educational Games. In INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INTERACTIVE MULTIMEDIA AND ARTIFICIAL IN℡LIGENCE (Vol. 7, Issue 2, pp. 250–261). UNIV INT RIOJA-UNIR. https://doi.org/10.9781/ijimai.2021.03.003

Yan, R., Zhao, X., & Mazumdar, S. (2023). Chatbots in Libraries: A Systematic Literature Review. Education for Information, 39(4), 431–449. https://doi.org/10.3233/EFI-230045