How to Do a Systematic Literature Review for Your Dissertation

Written By

Steven George

✔️ 97% Satisfaction | ⏰ 97% On Time | ⚡ 8+ Hour Delivery

A systematic literature review follows explicit procedures to find, assess, and synthesise all relevant sources. Unlike a traditional literature review where you read around your topic, systematic reviews are methodical and reproducible. They're becoming increasingly expected for dissertations.

Why Systematic Approaches Matter

Traditional literature reviews rely on your judgement about which sources matter. You might miss important work. Systematic reviews reduce bias by using explicit criteria. You're transparent about which sources you included and why. Because this transparency matters for academic rigour, many universities now expect systematic or at least semi-systematic approaches.

And here's what matters: you don't need to conduct a fully systematic review (which is labour-intensive). But using systematic principles, explicit search strategy, clear inclusion criteria, documented process, strengthens your literature review .

The Five Steps of Systematic Reviewing

Step 1: Define your research question precisely. "What influences employee engagement?" is vague. "What's the relationship between flexible working arrangements and employee engagement in UK professional services firms?" is appropriately specific. Your research question guides everything that follows.

Step 2: Develop inclusion and exclusion criteria. What sources count? Published peer-reviewed articles only? Or grey literature too? What date range? English language only? Which populations or sectors? Document these criteria explicitly. Because clarity prevents inconsistent decisions, write them down before searching.

Step 3: Conduct systematic searches. Search databases (JSTOR, EBSCOhost, Google Scholar) using your research question to develop search terms. "Employee engagement AND flexible working" might be your search. Try variations: "work flexibility AND engagement," "remote work AND employee satisfaction." Document every search you conduct. How many results did you find? What did you examine?

Step 4: Screen results using your criteria. Read titles. Do they match your question? Read abstracts. Do they seem relevant? Include sources that meet your criteria. Exclude those that don't. Document your screening process. At this point, many searches yield hundreds of results. Screening reduces this to a manageable subset.

Step 5: Extract and synthesise data. For included sources, extract relevant information. Author, year, method, findings, quality assessment. Then synthesise across sources. What do they collectively say? Where do they agree? Where do they diverge? This synthesis becomes your literature review.

Real Examples from UK Systematic Reviews

A Manchester student investigating burnout interventions creates this process:

Research question: What are the effectiveness of workplace wellbeing interventions in reducing teacher burnout in secondary schools, and which intervention types are most effective?

Inclusion criteria: Peer-reviewed empirical studies, intervention studies, secondary school populations, published 2015-2024, English language, outcome measures of burnout or wellbeing.

Exclusion criteria: Primary school settings, intervention case studies without outcome measurement, conceptual/theoretical papers without intervention data.

Search strategy: Databases searched. ERIC, PsycINFO, JSTOR. Search terms: ("teacher burnout" OR "occupational burnout" AND "intervention" OR "programme" OR "initiative") AND ("secondary school" OR "high school") AND ("wellbeing" OR "mental health" OR "burnout scale").

Screening: Found 487 articles. Screened titles, 234 met basic criteria. Screened abstracts, 87 seemed relevant. Full-text review, 42 actually met inclusion criteria. Final analysis examined these 42 sources.

An Oxford student examining climate change policy effectiveness:

Research question: What factors explain variation in UK local authorities' progress towards carbon neutrality targets, and which policy instruments are most effective?

Inclusion criteria: UK-based studies, local authority populations, 2015-2024, climate/carbon policy outcomes measured, peer-reviewed.

Exclusion criteria: National/international level policies, theoretical papers without empirical data, non-UK contexts.

Search strategy: Databases searched. Google Scholar, JSTOR, Environmental Complete. Search terms: ("local authority" OR "local government" AND "carbon" OR "climate" OR "sustainability" AND "policy" OR "target" OR "outcome").

Screening: Found 312 results. Titles screened, 128 met criteria. Abstracts, 51 seemed relevant. Full text, 28 finally included. Analysis synthesised findings from these 28 sources.

A Durham student investigating narrative approaches in therapy:

Research question: How effective are narrative therapy approaches compared to cognitive-behavioural approaches in treating anxiety disorders, and does effectiveness vary by patient populations?

Inclusion criteria: Comparative studies, anxiety disorders, both CBT and narrative therapy conditions, outcome measurement, peer-reviewed, 2010-2024.

Exclusion criteria: Single-approach studies, other diagnoses, uncontrolled studies, non-English.

Search strategy: Databases. PsycINFO, MEDLINE, PubMed. Terms: ("narrative therapy" OR "narrative approach" AND "cognitive behavioural therapy" OR "CBT" AND "anxiety" AND "effectiveness" OR "efficacy" OR "outcome").

Screening: Found 156 articles. Titles, 67 met criteria. Abstracts, 24 relevant. Full text, 11 met all criteria. These 11 formed the review's evidence base.

Creating Your Search Strategy

Use a Boolean strategy. AND narrows results. OR broadens. Parentheses group terms.

"Employee engagement" AND ("flexible working" OR "remote work" OR "work flexibility") AND ("UK" OR "Britain" OR "United Kingdom") finds articles about employee engagement and flexible working in UK contexts.

Search multiple databases. Each has different coverage. JSTOR covers more humanities. EBSCOhost covers business. PsycINFO covers psychology. Google Scholar is broadest but returns more junk. Searching three databases is standard. Searching five is thorough.

Document your search process. Write down: database name, exact search terms, number of results, date searched. This documentation shows rigour and allows others to reproduce your search if needed.

The transition from coursework essays to a full dissertation can feel daunting for many students, largely because the dissertation requires a much higher level of independent research, sustained argument, and self-directed project management than most previous assignments. Unlike a coursework essay, which typically has a defined topic and a relatively short word count, a dissertation gives you the freedom to choose your own research question and to pursue it in considerable depth over a period of several months. That freedom can be both exhilarating and overwhelming, which is why it is so important to develop a clear plan early in the process and to work consistently towards your goals rather than waiting for inspiration to strike. Students who approach the dissertation as a long-term project requiring regular, disciplined effort consistently produce better work than those who attempt to write the entire dissertation in the final weeks before the submission deadline.

Screening and Selection

Develop a simple form. For each article, record: title, author, year, why included/excluded. This documentation clarifies your decision-making. Because transparency strengthens your review, detailed documentation matters.

Consider having two reviewers screen sources independently, then compare decisions. This catches errors and reduces individual bias. At university level, you might be solo, but documenting your reasoning serves the same purpose.

Synthesising Your Findings

Don't just list sources. Show patterns. "Five studies found X. Three studies found Y. Two studies found Z. Studies finding X used population A; studies finding Y used population B." This pattern-finding is synthesis.

You might create tables showing source characteristics, findings, methodology. These tables help readers see patterns and make comparisons. Visuals often communicate synthesis more effectively than prose.

Action Points for Your Systematic Review

Define your research question explicitly before anything else. Show it to your supervisor. Once approved, develop your inclusion criteria. Be strict. Your criteria should eliminate roughly 80-90% of initial results. That's normal and appropriate.

Then conduct your search following your planned strategy. Document everything. Finally, create a simple screening form and apply it consistently. Because systematic rigour creates better literature reviews, investing in process matters.

Understanding the marking criteria for your dissertation is a necessary step in preparing to write it, as the criteria specify exactly what your assessors are looking for and how they will distribute marks across different elements of your work. Many students are surprised to discover how much weight is given to aspects of their dissertation such as the coherence of the argument, the quality of the literature review, and the rigour of the methodology, relative to the novelty of the findings. Reading the marking criteria carefully before you begin writing allows you to make informed decisions about where to invest your time and effort, ensuring that you address the most heavily weighted components of the assessment as thoroughly as possible. If your module handbook does not include a detailed breakdown of the marking criteria, your supervisor or module leader will generally be willing to explain how the dissertation is marked and what distinguishes a first-class piece of work from a lower grade.

FAQ

Q1: Is a fully systematic review required for dissertations? Not necessarily. Some dissertations use traditional literature review approaches. However, using systematic principles, explicit search strategy, clear inclusion criteria, documented process, strengthens any literature review. At Cambridge, even traditional reviews benefit from systematic components. You need not conduct a full systematic review (which is extremely labour-intensive), but systematic elements improve rigour substantially.

Q2: How long should I search databases? Search until you're finding the same sources repeatedly and discovering minimal new material. For most dissertation literature reviews, this means searching 3-5 databases until you've reviewed 30-100 relevant sources. At Durham, students typically spend 2-4 weeks on database searching. Because searching exhaustively takes months, aim for thorough rather than exhaustive, thorough coverage of main databases rather than every possible database.

Q3: What if I find conflicting findings across sources? This is valuable. Synthesise by explaining what causes variation. Do different populations show different results? Different methodologies? Different time periods? Explaining variation is more sophisticated than reporting agreement. At LSE, literature reviews that explain why sources disagree score higher than those that ignore conflict. Because real research often shows variation, explaining it demonstrates analytical depth.

Q4: Should I critically appraise source quality in my systematic review? Yes. After identifying relevant sources, assess their quality. Was sample size adequate? Were methods rigorous? Were conclusions justified by findings? Recording this quality assessment shows critical engagement. At Imperial College, systematic reviews include quality assessment sections. Because not all sources are equally valuable, distinguishing stronger from weaker work matters.

Q5: Can I use systematic approaches for humanities dissertations? Yes, though humanities disciplines often use slightly different terminology. "Evidence synthesis" or "historiographical review" serve similar purposes to systematic review. The principles, explicit search strategy, documented process, synthesis of findings, apply across disciplines. At Oxford, even philosophy and history students benefit from systematic approaches even if they don't use that exact terminology. Because rigorous process matters in all disciplines, systematic principles apply broadly.