If you’ve ever been told that your literature review “lacks depth” or “reads more like a list than a synthesis,” you’re not alone. For many postgraduate students, the literature review is a strange beast, part essay, part roadmap, and part theoretical dance.
Dr Muringa, the Research Director at M&G Research, often reminds us that in academic writing, a good literature review is not just about what other scholars have said. It’s about what you, as the researcher, are saying through what others have said. In other words, the literature review should reflect your thinking, not just your reading.
Many students fail to grasp this critical distinction. The real purpose of the literature review in academic research is to serve as an intellectual pitch a space where you demonstrate your understanding of the study area, identify existing gaps, align your work with ongoing scholarly debates, and justify the significance of your research.
A literature review is not a summary of existing work, but a scholarly argument built through critical engagement with sources,” says Dr Gilbert, M&G’s Senior Research Executive
Yet far too often, students reduce the literature review to a parade of paraphrased authors and disconnected studies. Because no one tells them the golden rule of synthesis beats summary, always.
Here’s an example:
❌ Summary-style writing:
Smith (2020) argues that social media can distort political discourse. Johnson (2021) supports this by showing how echo chambers form. Meanwhile, Adams (2019) focuses on algorithmic bias.
✅ Argumentative synthesis:
While Smith (2020) and Johnson (2021) both highlight the disruptive nature of social media in political communication, Adams (2019) complicates this narrative by pointing to systemic platform algorithms, suggesting that distortion is not merely user-driven but also structurally embedded.
There is a shift in the example, as the argumentative synthesis tells a story. It builds a position and, crucially, places the writer at the centre of the review. Additionally, students need to understand that the research gap is not enough. Every thesis proposal says it: “There’s a gap in the literature.” But gaps are meaningless unless they’re situated within scholarly debates.
Therefore, ask yourself these key questions when you are reviewing literature and writing the lit review:
- What do authors agree on?
- Where do they disagree, and why?
- What key concepts, frameworks, or assumptions are driving these tensions?
- Where does your research enter the conversation?
This is the difference between a descriptive report and a review that persuades.
Students need to note the key tips are:
- Map your sources
Use a synthesis matrix to group literature by themes, not authors. - Prioritise debates, not dates
Don’t follow a year-by-year chronology. Organise by ideas, controversies, or methodological tensions. - Use meta-language
Phrases such as “while X argues…,” “in contrast to…,” or “building upon…” help you weave a narrative. - Anchor it to your study
Every paragraph should somehow funnel back to your research problem or theoretical lens. - Avoid the ‘literature dump’
Don’t flood the review with citations. Use only the most relevant voices and analyze them.
A literature review isn’t a checklist. It’s a demonstration of how you think, not merely what you have read. Your value as a postgraduate researcher lies in the connections you draw, the contradictions you expose, and the arguments you build. The crafting an effective literature review is not just a writing exercise, but it is an act of scholarly positioning in which your voice matters.
Leave a Reply