He received his Ph D in English Literature and Medieval Studies from the University of Texas at Austin in 2014.
This section compares and contrasts published studies and identifies gaps that have not been addressed or have been unsuccessfully addressed. This section differs slightly between reviews which are part of research articles and narrative reviews.
The section describes the main conclusions from analysis of all the current studies and puts forth further avenues for research.
The literature review has been described as a "report of primary scholarship" (Cooper, 1988) and "an interpretation and synthesis of published work" (Merriam, 1988, quoted by Murray, 2002).
The two key words here are scholarship and synthesis: a literature review relates particular research to the a wider field.
These studies are based on a well-defined strategy unlike narrative reviews.
Systematic reviews and narrative reviews are organized slightly differently.All literature reviews should be more than a mere description of the current state of knowledge of an area, and should critically evaluate the theoretical positions and research studies, drawing attention to major debates.This is particularly true for a research dissertation or paper, which should go one step further by using the review to situate the author's own contribution to knowledge.A literature review should begin with a thorough literature search using the main keywords in relevant online databases such as Google Scholar, Pub Med, etc.Once all the relevant literature has been gathered, it should be organized as follows: A literature review should not be a mere recounting of all the available information.It should be a critical and analytical summary of the selected literature that guides the readers through the central theme of the research.Body is normally used for describing the different themes under the main topic by dividing them into different subheadings.one school stresses the importance of industry factors (Montgomery and Porter, 1991; Porter, 1980, 1985), while others stress firm-specific competences (Day and Nedungadi, 1994; Hamel and Prahalad, 1994a,b; Prahalad and Hamel, 1990; Sanchez ., 1996) and inimitable resources (Barney, 1991; Grant, 1991; Wernerfelt, 1984).Some schools urge firms to focus on developing their dynamic capabilities (Teece and Pisano, 1994) and higher-order learning processes (Dickson, 1996; Senge, 1990; Sinkula ., 1997), while others emphasize the value-creating potential of networks of relationships (Berry and Parasuraman, 1991; Grönroos, 1996; Gummesson, 1994; Morgan and Hunt, 1994; Sheth and Parvatiyar, 1995a,b; Varadarajan and Cunningham, 1995; Weitz and Jap, 1995; Wilson, 1995).This section requires critical interpretation by the author such that the review adds value to existing literature.It should bring out ideas/hypotheses that can explain any discrepancies and provide solutions to existing problems.