A Narrative or Traditional Literature Review is conducted as preliminary part of a research study. The purpose is to critique and to summarize the current literature that exists on the research topic. The literature review helps to understand the topic and can identify inconsistencies and gaps in the literature, helping to justify why the research question is worth studying.
To conduct a narrative or traditional literature review a researcher should "systematically search, critique and combine the literature to demonstrate a gap in the existing research base" while demonstrating "their understanding of both the research and the methods previously used to investigate the area" (Aveyard, 2010).
The purpose of a literature review may slightly differ depending on what kind of research is being conducted.
Purpose in Quantitative:
Purpose in Qualitative:
Knowledge Syntheses are reviews that are research projects themselves. The literature search is done systematically, and seeks to "evaluate and interpret all available research evidence relevant to a particular question" (Glasziou, 2001).
Knowledge synthesis can be defined as “…the contextualization and integration of research findings of individual research studies within the larger body of knowledge on the topic. A synthesis must be reproducible and transparent in its methods, using quantitative and/or qualitative methods... Realist syntheses, narrative syntheses, meta-analyses, meta-syntheses and practice guidelines are all forms of synthesis.” (Canadian Institutes of Health Research. (2016, July 28). Knowledge Translation. Retrieved September 15, 2019 from http://www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/29418.html. )
Types of Knowledge Syntheses
Systematic Review
Example: systematic review
Meta-Analysis
Example: meta-analysis
Scoping Review
Example: scoping review
Integrative Review
Example: integrative review
Aveyard, H. (2010). Doing a literature review in health and social care: A practical guide (2nd ed.). Berkshire, Great Britain: Open University Press.
Canadian Institutes of Health Research. (2016, July 28). Knowledge Translation. Retrieved September 15, 2019 from http://www.cihr- irsc.gc.ca/e/29418.html.
Colquhoun, H. L., Levac, D., O'Brien, K. K., Straus, S., Tricco, A. C., Perrier, L., . . . Moher, D. (2014). Scoping reviews: Time for clarity in definition, methods, and reporting. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 67(12), 1291-1294. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.03.013.
Glasziou, P. (2001). Systematic reviews in health care: A practical guide. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Grove, S., Gray, J. & Burns, N. (2015). Understanding Nursing Research: Building an Evidence-Based Practice. St. Louis, Missouri: Elsevier Saunders.
Whittemore R. & Knaf K. (2005). The integrative review: updated methodology. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 52(5). http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2005.03621.x