How to Write a Literature Review for a Dissertation: Structure, Template and Worked Example
A step-by-step guide to writing a dissertation literature review for UK universities: what to include, how long it should be, a ready-to-use structure template, a synthesis matrix and a worked example showing descriptive versus critical writing.
Key Academic Takeaways:
- A literature review is a critical synthesis of research organised by theme, not a list of summaries.
- Use a three-part structure: introduction, thematic main body, and a conclusion that identifies the research gap.
- In a dissertation it is usually 20 to 30% of the word count, around 2,500 to 3,000 words for a 10,000-word dissertation.
- Build a synthesis matrix before you write. Each theme column becomes a section of your review.
- UK markers reward critical evaluation: compare, question and judge studies instead of describing them.
What is a literature review?
A literature review is a critical summary and evaluation of the published research on a topic. In a dissertation, it shows the marker three things:
- You understand the key theories, debates and studies in your field.
- You can judge the strengths and weaknesses of that research.
- There is a research gap that your study will address.
It is not a list of everything you have read. A good literature review connects sources to each other and to your research question.
Types of literature review
| Type | What it does | Typical use |
|---|---|---|
| Narrative (traditional) review | Summarises and critiques research on a topic, organised by theme | Most undergraduate and Master's dissertations |
| Systematic review | Follows a pre-set, reproducible search and selection protocol, often reported with PRISMA | Health, nursing, psychology and evidence-based Master's projects |
| Scoping review | Maps the size and nature of research on a broad topic | Emerging topics with scattered evidence |
| Integrative review | Combines qualitative and quantitative studies into one analysis | Nursing and social science |
If your module asks for a systematic review, read our PRISMA systematic review guide before you start searching.
How long should a literature review be?
In most UK dissertations the literature review is 20 to 30% of the total word count. Always check your module handbook, as some programmes set a fixed length.
| Level | Typical dissertation length | Literature review length | Typical number of sources |
|---|---|---|---|
| Undergraduate | 8,000 to 12,000 words | 2,000 to 3,500 words | 20 to 40 |
| Master's | 12,000 to 20,000 words | 3,500 to 5,500 words | 40 to 60 |
| PhD | 80,000 to 100,000 words | One or more chapters | 100+ |
Literature review structure
Almost every UK university guide recommends the same three-part structure. In a dissertation the literature review is usually Chapter 2, after the introduction.
1. Introduction (about 10% of the review)
- State the topic and why it matters.
- Define key terms.
- Explain the scope: date range, databases searched, types of study included.
- Tell the reader how the review is organised (for example, "This chapter is organised into three themes...").
2. Main body (about 80% of the review)
- One section per theme, each with its own subheading.
- Within each theme, compare studies: where they agree, where they disagree and why.
- Evaluate methods, samples and limitations, not just findings.
- Move from broad context to the studies closest to your research question.
3. Conclusion (about 10% of the review)
- Summarise what is known and what is contested.
- State the gap clearly: what has not been studied, or not in your context.
- Link the gap directly to your research question and aims.
Literature review template (outline)
Copy this outline into your document and replace the prompts with your own content. You can also download the outline as a Word document.
Chapter 2: Literature Review
2.1 Introduction: topic, key definitions, scope of the search, how the chapter is organised
2.2 Theme 1: [name]: key studies, points of agreement, contradictions, methodological strengths and weaknesses
2.3 Theme 2: [name]: as above, linking back to Theme 1 where relevant
2.4 Theme 3: [name]: as above, moving closer to your specific research question
2.5 Theoretical or conceptual framework (if required): the model or theory your study uses and why
2.6 Summary and research gap: what is known, what is contested, what is missing, and how your study responds
How to write a literature review: step by step
Step 1: Define your scope
Write down your research question and break it into key concepts. Set limits before you search: publication date (often the last 10 years, plus seminal older works), language, geography (for example, UK or NHS settings) and study type.
Step 2: Search systematically
Use your university library databases rather than Google alone. Common choices for UK students:
- General: Scopus, Web of Science, Google Scholar
- Health and nursing: CINAHL, PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Library
- Business: Business Source Complete, Emerald Insight
- Law: Westlaw UK, LexisNexis, HeinOnline
- Social sciences and education: JSTOR, ERIC, PsycINFO
Combine your keywords with Boolean operators:
- AND narrows: remote work AND wellbeing
- OR widens: remote work OR teleworking OR "working from home"
- Quotation marks find exact phrases: "employee engagement"
- Asterisk finds word endings: manag* finds manager, management, managing
Record your search terms, databases, filters and number of results. Many markers expect a short description of your search strategy, and it is essential for a systematic review.
Step 3: Evaluate and select sources
Prioritise peer-reviewed journal articles, systematic reviews and key books in your field. Use inclusion and exclusion criteria to decide what stays. For each source, note:
- Aim and research question
- Method and sample size
- Main findings
- Limitations
- Relevance to your question
Appraisal checklists such as CASP (for health research) help you judge study quality consistently.
Step 4: Build a synthesis matrix
A synthesis matrix is a table with your sources in rows and your themes in columns. It turns a pile of summaries into patterns you can write about.
| Source | Theme 1: Productivity | Theme 2: Wellbeing | Theme 3: Management | Method |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Study A (2019) | Increased | Not measured | Weaker oversight | Survey, n=1,200 |
| Study B (2021) | Increased | Lower isolation in hybrid staff | Not measured | Interviews, n=24 |
| Study C (2022) | No change | Higher isolation | Trust-based management | Mixed methods |
| Study D (2023) | Decreased in small firms | Not measured | Lack of training | Case study |
Read down each column and you can see where studies agree, where they conflict and which theme has the least evidence. That thinnest column is often your gap.
Step 5: Choose how to organise the review
| Structure | Best used when | Watch out for |
|---|---|---|
| Thematic | The literature groups into topics or debates | The most common and usually the safest choice |
| Chronological | You need to show how thinking developed over time | Can become a list of dates with no analysis |
| Methodological | Studies differ mainly in research approach | Can read as a list if not compared critically |
| Theoretical | You are comparing competing models or frameworks | Needs a clear link back to your study |
Many strong reviews are thematic, with some chronology inside each theme.
Step 6: Write critically, not descriptively
This is where most marks are won or lost. Each paragraph should compare studies, not describe them one by one.
Step 7: Conclude with the research gap
End by summarising what the literature shows, what is still debated and what is missing. Then state, in one or two sentences, how your study addresses that gap.
Worked example: descriptive vs critical writing
Using the matrix above, here is the same evidence written two ways.
Descriptive (2:2 level)
Study A (2019) found that remote working increased productivity. Study B (2021) also found productivity increased. Study C (2022) found no change. Study D (2023) found productivity decreased in small firms.
Critical synthesis (First-Class level)
Evidence on productivity is mixed. Large-sample survey data (Study A, 2019) and interview findings (Study B, 2021) both report gains, but neither examined small organisations. Study D (2023) suggests the effect may reverse in small firms, where managers lacked training to support remote staff. This points to organisational size and management capability as possible moderators, although Study D's single-case design limits how far its findings can be generalised.
The second version compares studies, explains differences, evaluates methods and builds an argument. That is what UK marking criteria mean by critical analysis.
Example research gap statement
While existing studies report productivity gains from remote working in large organisations, little research has examined how small UK firms manage remote staff wellbeing. This study addresses that gap by...
Useful phrases for synthesis
| Purpose | Phrases |
|---|---|
| Showing agreement | "Consistent with...", "This finding is supported by...", "Several studies converge on..." |
| Showing contrast | "In contrast...", "However, Study X challenges this view...", "These findings conflict with..." |
| Evaluating | "A key limitation of this study is...", "The small sample size limits...", "This is a more robust design because..." |
| Identifying a gap | "Little research has examined...", "It remains unclear whether...", "No study to date has explored..." |
Literature review vs annotated bibliography
| Literature review | Annotated bibliography | |
|---|---|---|
| Organisation | By theme or argument | Source by source, usually alphabetical |
| Purpose | Synthesise research and identify a gap | Summarise and evaluate individual sources |
| Writing style | Continuous prose with an argument | Separate entries |
If you have been asked for an annotated bibliography, use it as a first step, then build your literature review from it.
What UK markers look for
| Grade band | What the literature review shows |
|---|---|
| First (70%+) | Critical synthesis, wide and current reading, clear argument, well-justified gap |
| 2:1 (60 to 69%) | Good range of sources, some comparison and evaluation, gap identified |
| 2:2 (50 to 59%) | Mostly descriptive, limited comparison, gap vague or missing |
| Third / Fail (below 50%) | List of summaries, narrow or outdated reading, poor referencing |
Not sure what these bands mean? See our guide to the UK university grading system.
Common literature review mistakes
- Summarising source by source with no comparison.
- Relying on textbooks and websites instead of peer-reviewed journals.
- Including everything you read, whether relevant or not.
- Using outdated sources without explaining why older work still matters.
- No clear gap, or a gap that does not match your research question.
- Inconsistent referencing. Follow Harvard or whichever style your module requires, and use a referencing generator to check your list.
Checklist before you submit
- Each section is organised by theme, with a clear subheading.
- Every paragraph compares at least two sources.
- You have evaluated methods and limitations, not just findings.
- Most sources are peer-reviewed and recent, with older seminal works explained.
- The conclusion states a clear gap that leads into your research question.
- All in-text citations match your reference list.
- The review fits the word count in your handbook.
Need help with your literature review?
If you are short on time or unsure how to move from description to critical synthesis, our UK specialists can help.
- Literature review writing service: a themed, critically synthesised model review built around your research question, with real, checkable references.
- Dissertation writing service: support across every chapter, from proposal to discussion.
- Pre-submission rubric audit: feedback on your draft against your marking criteria before you submit.
Every order includes a free Turnitin report and 21 days of revisions. Get an instant quote for your literature review.
For the next chapter, see our guides to dissertation structure and writing a First-Class methodology.
Get Started Your Academic Assistance
Enter your details to claim priority allocation with our verified UK doctorate mentors.
Popular Subjects
Explore verified research faculties
Academic Work Samples
Review authentic First-Class academic papers across our core disciplines.
UK CIGA 2020 Commercial Restructuring Case Study
In-depth statutory analysis of the Part 26A Restructuring Plan under the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020, focusing on the s.901G cross-class cram-down mechanism.
EV Market Dynamic Capabilities & GVC Resilience Sample
Strategic evaluation of automotive original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) using Teece's Dynamic Capabilities framework and Porter's Value Chain.
NEWS2 Acute Sepsis Triage CASP Review Sample
Systematic literature review evaluating National Early Warning Score 2 (NEWS2) in emergency sepsis triage, synthesized across 28 randomized controlled trials using CASP.
Distributed Cloud Consensus & Fault Tolerance Sample
Implementation and performance benchmarking of a Byzantine-resilient Raft consensus cluster in Python and Go, evaluating network partition tolerance.
Econometric Volatility Modeling in Decentralized Finance Markets
Empirical GARCH and EGARCH econometric evaluation of asymmetric volatility clustering across decentralized liquidity protocols and collateralized lending pools.
CBT Intervention Efficacy in Adolescent Generalized Anxiety
Randomized controlled trial synthesis evaluating school-delivered Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) protocols against waitlist controls for adolescent generalized anxiety.
Frequently Asked Questions on How to Write a Literature Review for a Dissertation: Structure, Template and Worked Example
Everything you need to know about how to write a literature review for a dissertation: structure, template and worked example and academic submission standards.
Instant & Transparent Answers
Clear guidance on word counts, Turnitin reports, and university rubrics.
Still Need Personal Advice?
Consult 1-on-1 with senior UK specialists before placing your brief.
100% Confidential & Secure
Strict NDA privacy protection, encrypted payments, and full IP transfer.
It is a chapter that critically summarises and evaluates published research on your topic, organised by theme, and identifies the gap your study will address. It usually comes after the introduction as Chapter 2.
Usually 20 to 30% of the dissertation. For a 10,000-word undergraduate dissertation that is about 2,500 to 3,000 words, and for a 15,000-word Master's dissertation about 4,000 to 4,500 words.
It depends on the level and topic, but an undergraduate review commonly draws on 20 to 40 sources and a Master's review on 40 to 60. Quality and relevance matter more than the total.
An introduction that sets the scope, a main body organised into themes, and a conclusion that summarises the evidence and states the research gap.
Start by defining your research question and key concepts, then search library databases with Boolean operators. Record your search terms, and build a synthesis matrix before you start writing.
Most sources should be from the last 10 years, but older seminal works that shaped the field are fine if you explain why they still matter.
A standard literature review selects and discusses key research by theme. A systematic review follows a strict, reproducible search and selection protocol, often reported with a PRISMA flow diagram.
Most UK departments prefer an impersonal academic style in the literature review, for example 'This chapter examines...'. Some subjects accept limited first person, so check your module handbook.
Enhance Your Academic Performance Today
Speak directly to an academic registrar or calculate your instant quote with 40% launch discount.
0.0% AI & Turnitin
Certified human-written with official verification report
480+ UK PhD Mentors
Matched to your university rubric & module handbook
21-Day Free Revisions
Priority post-delivery adjustments until supervisor approval
Applied automatically to all custom assignment briefs this week