Introduction to the Literature Review: A Complete Guide for Dissertations

What Is the Introduction to the Literature Review?

The introduction to the literature review is the opening section of Chapter Two that orients readers to your review of existing scholarship. It provides essential information about what the review covers, how you found the literature, how you have organized your discussion, and what readers can expect to learn.

Think of it as a roadmap for the journey through the literature. Before readers dive into decades of research, they need to know where they are going, why they are going there, and how the territory is organized.

The introduction answers several fundamental questions:

• What is the purpose of this literature review?
• What topics, themes, or bodies of literature are included?
• What is excluded, and why?
• How did I find the sources I will discuss?
• How have I organized the review?
• What will readers gain from this chapter?

Where Does the Introduction Appear in a Thesis or Dissertation?

In standard US dissertation structure, the introduction to the literature review appears:

The typical flow of Chapter Two is:

1. Introduction to the Review: Orients readers to purpose, scope, search strategy, and organization
2. Thematic/Chronological/Methodological Sections: The body of the review, organized according to your chosen structure
3. Synthesis and Identification of Gaps: Pulls together themes and identifies what is missing
4. Conceptual or Theoretical Framework (if not in Chapter One): Presents the framework guiding the study
5. Chapter Summary: Recaps key points and transitions to Chapter Three

Institutions such as Purdue University and University of Michigan emphasize that the introduction must be clear and comprehensive enough that readers understand exactly what the review covers and how it is organized before diving into the content.

Why the Introduction to the Literature Review Is Important

A well-written introduction:

1. Orients Readers: It tells readers what to expect, reducing confusion as they navigate potentially complex material.
2. Demonstrates Systematic Approach: It shows that your review is not random but carefully planned and executed.
3. Establishes Credibility: By explaining your search strategy and inclusion criteria, you demonstrate scholarly rigor.
4. Provides a Roadmap: It helps readers understand how the review is organized and why.
5. Sets Boundaries: It clarifies what is and is not covered, preventing unrealistic expectations.
6. Engages Readers: A strong introduction motivates readers to continue by showing why the review matters.
7. Connects to Your Study: It links the literature review back to your research problem and forward to your methodology.

Without a strong introduction, readers may feel lost, unsure of why certain literature is included or how it all fits together.

Key Components of a Strong Introduction

A well-developed introduction to the literature review typically includes:

How to Write the Introduction to the Literature Review (Step-by-Step Guide)

Step 1: State the Purpose of the Review

Begin by clearly stating what this literature review aims to accomplish. Connect it back to your research problem from Chapter One.

Example:

"The purpose of this literature review is to examine existing scholarship on community college transfer students and their persistence at four-year institutions. This review situates the current study within the broader academic conversation, identifies what is known about transfer student experiences, and reveals gaps that justify the need for further investigation."

Step 2: Define the Scope

Explain what the review covers and, importantly, what it does not cover. Be specific about:

• Time period covered (e.g., "literature published between 2000 and 2024")
• Geographic focus (e.g., "studies conducted in the United States")
• Population focus (e.g., "research on community college transfer students")
• Types of literature included (e.g., "peer-reviewed journal articles, books, and major reports from educational organizations")
• What is excluded and why

Example:

"This review focuses on empirical studies published in peer-reviewed journals between 2000 and 2024, with attention to research conducted in United States higher education contexts. Foundational theoretical works published prior to 2000 are included when they remain relevant. The review excludes research on transfer students in other countries due to differences in educational systems, and excludes non-empirical works such as opinion pieces and practitioner newsletters."

Step 3: Describe Your Search Strategy

Briefly explain how you found the literature. This demonstrates systematic rigor. Include:

• Databases searched (e.g., ERIC, PsycINFO, ProQuest Dissertations)
• Key search terms used
• Any additional strategies (e.g., ancestry searching, hand-searching key journals)

Example:

"Relevant literature was identified through systematic searches of the ERIC, PsycINFO, and ProQuest Dissertations databases. Search terms included combinations of 'community college,' 'transfer student,' 'persistence,' 'retention,' 'graduation,' and 'baccalaureate attainment.' Ancestry searching—reviewing reference lists of key articles—identified additional sources. Key journals in higher education, including The Journal of Higher Education and Community College Review, were hand-searched for relevant articles."

Step 4: Explain Your Organizational Structure

Tell readers how you have organized the review and why you chose this structure. Common organizational approaches include:

• Thematic: Grouping studies by themes or topics that emerged from the literature
• Chronological: Tracing how research has evolved over time
• Methodological: Organizing by research methods used
• Theoretical: Grouping studies by theoretical frameworks applied

Example:

"This review is organized thematically, with sections addressing the major bodies of literature relevant to transfer student persistence. The first section examines theoretical frameworks commonly used to study student persistence, including Tinto's Theory of Student Departure and Bean's Model of Student Attrition. The second section reviews empirical studies on academic integration among transfer students. The third section examines research on social integration. The fourth section synthesizes literature on institutional practices that support transfer student success. This thematic organization allows for focused analysis of each key dimension of transfer student experience while highlighting relationships across themes."

Step 5: Provide a Brief Preview

Briefly preview what each section will cover, giving readers a clear sense of what to expect.

Example:

"Following this introduction, Section 2.1 reviews the theoretical foundations of persistence research. Section 2.2 examines empirical studies of academic integration, including research on grade performance, faculty interaction, and academic engagement. Section 2.3 explores literature on social integration, focusing on peer relationships, campus involvement, and sense of belonging. Section 2.4 synthesizes research on institutional practices, including orientation programs, advising, and learning communities. Section 2.5 identifies gaps in the literature and positions the current study within the broader scholarly conversation."

Step 6: Connect to Your Study

Briefly remind readers how this review connects to your research problem and sets up your study.

Example:

"By systematically reviewing these bodies of literature, this chapter establishes what is currently known about transfer student persistence and, more importantly, what remains unexplored—particularly regarding transfer students at urban commuter institutions, the focus of the current study."

Step 7: End with a Transition

Conclude with a sentence that transitions into the first section of the body.

Example:

"The review begins with an examination of the theoretical frameworks that have shaped persistence research over the past five decades."

Complete Example of an Introduction

Examples of Introductions to the Literature Review

Example 1: Education (US Context)

Topic: The impact of school resource officers on disciplinary outcomes in Texas middle schools.

Example 2: Public Health (US Context)

Topic: Barriers to COVID-19 vaccination among rural elderly populations in Appalachia.

Example 3: Business (US Context)

Topic: The effect of four-day work weeks on employee productivity and retention in US technology firms.

Common Mistakes to Avoid

1. No Introduction

Mistake: Jumping directly into the body of the review without any introduction.

Why it fails: Readers are disoriented. They do not know what the review covers, how it is organized, or why certain literature is included.

Solution: Always include an introduction that orients readers before diving into content.

2. Too Vague

Mistake: "This chapter reviews the literature on my topic."

Why it fails: Provides no useful information about scope, search strategy, or organization.

Solution: Be specific. What exactly does the review cover? How is it organized?

3. No Search Strategy

Mistake: Describing what literature is included but not how it was found.

Why it fails: Readers cannot assess whether your review is systematic or selective.

Solution: Briefly describe databases searched, keywords used, and inclusion criteria.

4. No Scope Definition

Mistake: Not specifying boundaries—time periods, geographic focus, types of literature.

Why it fails: Readers wonder whether important literature was missed or whether the review is comprehensive.

Solution: Clearly state what is included and, importantly, what is excluded.

5. Disorganized Preview

Mistake: Listing sections without explaining what each contains.

Why it fails: Readers do not know what to expect from each section.

Solution: Briefly describe what each section covers, not just its title.

6. No Connection to Your Study

Mistake: Presenting the review as if it exists independently of your research.

Why it fails: Readers may not understand why this particular review matters for your study.

Solution: Connect the review back to your research problem and forward to your methodology.

7. Too Long

Mistake: A multi-page introduction that delays getting to the content.

Why it fails: Readers become impatient. The introduction should be concise.

Solution: Keep it to 2–4 paragraphs. Save detail for the body.

8. Too Short

Mistake: One paragraph that covers nothing substantive.

Why it fails: Readers are left without necessary orientation.

Solution: Ensure all key components (purpose, scope, search strategy, organization, preview) are covered.

9. No Transition

Mistake: Ending the introduction without leading into the first section.

Why it fails: The flow feels abrupt. Readers are not prepared for what comes next.

Solution: End with a sentence that transitions smoothly into the first section.

10. Promising What You Do Not Deliver

Mistake: Describing sections in your preview that do not appear in the actual review.

Why it fails: Readers notice inconsistency and wonder if the study is coherent.

Solution: Ensure the introduction accurately reflects the content that follows.

11. Inconsistent with Chapter One

Mistake: Using different terms or framing than Chapter One.

Why it fails: Readers notice inconsistency and wonder if the study is coherent.

Solution: Ensure terminology and framing align with Chapter One.

12. Including Too Much Detail About Findings

Mistake: Summarizing findings in the introduction.

Why it fails: The introduction should orient, not preview findings. Save findings for the body.

Solution: Focus on what the review covers, not what it finds.

Quick Checklist Before Submission

Before finalizing your introduction to the literature review, ask:

• Does it clearly state the purpose of the review?
• Does it define the scope (time period, geographic focus, types of literature)?
• Does it describe the search strategy (databases, keywords, inclusion criteria)?
• Does it explain the organizational structure and why it was chosen?
• Does it provide a brief preview of each major section?
• Does it connect the review to my research problem?
• Does it end with a transition into the first section?
• Is it concise (2–4 paragraphs)?
• Does it accurately reflect what the chapter contains?
• Is terminology consistent with Chapter One?
• Would a reader finish this introduction knowing what to expect?

If the answer to all is yes, your introduction is strong.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

1. "How long should the introduction to the literature review be?"

Typically 2–4 paragraphs or 1–2 pages. It should be long enough to cover all key components but concise enough to move readers quickly into the body of the review. Some disciplines prefer shorter introductions; others expect more detail. Check recent dissertations in your field for examples.

2. "Should I include my search strategy in the introduction?"

Yes, briefly. A concise description of databases searched, keywords used, and inclusion criteria demonstrates systematic rigor. Full detail (like exact search strings and date ranges) can go in an appendix if needed, but a summary belongs in the introduction.

3. "Do I need subheadings in my introduction?"

Not usually. The introduction is typically a continuous narrative. However, if your university or department has specific formatting requirements, follow them. Some writers use a bolded "Introduction" heading at the start of the chapter.

4. "Can I write the introduction before finishing the review?"

Yes, but plan to revise it. Drafting an early introduction helps you clarify your thinking and organization. However, after completing the review, revisit the introduction to ensure it accurately reflects what you actually wrote.

5. "Should I cite sources in the introduction?"

Minimally. The introduction orients readers to the review; it does not typically synthesize findings. You might cite a few foundational works or key reviews, but extensive citation belongs in the body. If you cite, keep it to 1–2 essential references.

6. "How do I decide on an organizational structure?"

Choose a structure that best tells the story of your literature. Ask: What would help readers understand this field? How do scholars in my field typically organize reviews? What structure would best highlight the gaps my study addresses? Common options: thematic (by topic), chronological (by time), methodological (by research approach), or theoretical (by framework). Your choice should make logical sense for your topic.

7. "What if my literature review uses multiple organizational approaches?"

That is fine. Many reviews combine approaches. For example, you might organize thematically but within each theme trace chronological development. Explain this in your introduction: "Within each theme, studies are discussed chronologically to show how understanding has evolved."

8. "Do I need to explain why I excluded certain literature?"

Yes, briefly. If you are excluding major bodies of literature that readers might expect, explain why. For example: "Research on transfer students in other countries is excluded due to significant differences in educational systems." This prevents readers from questioning omissions.

9. "Should I include theoretical literature, empirical literature, or both?"

Both, as relevant. Most literature reviews include theoretical foundations and empirical studies. The introduction should indicate what types of literature are covered.

10. "How do I write the introduction for a systematic review?"

Systematic reviews have more detailed methodology. Your introduction should still include purpose, scope, and organization, but you may have a separate methodology section within Chapter Two detailing PRISMA guidelines, inclusion/exclusion criteria, quality assessment, etc. The introduction provides the overview; methodology follows.

11. "Can I include a figure or table in my introduction?"

Sometimes, if helpful. A concept map showing how literature streams connect, or a table summarizing search results, can be useful. However, keep the introduction primarily narrative. Complex figures or tables may belong later in the chapter or in an appendix.

12. "How do I connect the introduction to my research questions?"

Explicitly state that the review serves to address your research questions. For example: "This review examines literature relevant to the research questions guiding this study: What factors influence transfer student persistence, and how do these factors operate at urban commuter institutions?"

13. "Should I mention gaps in the introduction or save them for later?"

Briefly mention that gaps exist, but save detailed gap identification for the synthesis section at the end of the chapter. The introduction can hint: "The review concludes by identifying gaps in the literature that justify the current study."

14. "How do I write the introduction for a dissertation with multiple studies?"

If your dissertation includes multiple studies (common in PhDs), your literature review may be organized around them. The introduction should explain this structure: "This chapter reviews literature relevant to both Study 1 (examining factors predicting persistence) and Study 2 (exploring student experiences). Section 2.2 reviews quantitative research on persistence factors, while Section 2.3 reviews qualitative studies of student experience."

15. "Do I need to update my introduction if my literature review changes during writing?"

Yes, absolutely. The introduction must accurately reflect the final version of your chapter. After completing the review, revisit the introduction and revise as needed. It is the last thing you should edit in Chapter Two.

16. "Can I use first person in the introduction?"

It depends on your field and university. Some disciplines (especially humanities and qualitative social sciences) accept or encourage first person. Others (especially sciences) prefer third person. Check your department's guidelines. If unsure, use third person: "This review examines..." rather than "I review..."

17. "How do I write the introduction when literature is limited?"

Acknowledge the limited literature honestly. Explain that the review covers what exists and identifies the need for more research. For example: "Given the emerging nature of research on four-day work weeks in technology firms, this review also draws on related literature from alternative work schedules in other industries to provide relevant context."

18. "Should I include practitioner or gray literature?"

If relevant to your topic, yes. Explain in your introduction: "This review includes peer-reviewed research as well as reports from educational organizations and government agencies, as these provide important policy context." Be transparent about what you included and why.

19. "How do I write the introduction for a historical literature review?"

Explain the time period covered and why those boundaries were chosen. For example: "This review examines literature on school desegregation from 1954 (Brown v. Board) to 2024, tracing how research foci have shifted over seven decades."

20. "Do I need to mention theoretical frameworks in the introduction?"

If your literature review includes a section on theoretical frameworks, mention it in your preview. For example: "Section 2.2 reviews theoretical frameworks that have shaped persistence research." This prepares readers for what is coming.

Summary

The introduction to the literature review is the roadmap for Chapter Two. It orients readers, establishes rigor, and sets expectations for what follows.

A strong introduction:

• States the purpose of the review clearly
• Defines the scope (time, geography, types of literature)
• Describes the search strategy briefly
• Explains the organizational structure and why it was chosen
• Provides a brief preview of each major section
• Connects the review to the research problem
• Ends with a transition into the first section
• Is concise but comprehensive (2–4 paragraphs)
• Accurately reflects the content that follows

When written effectively, the introduction ensures that readers enter the literature review with clear expectations and a solid understanding of how the territory is mapped. It demonstrates that your review is systematic, focused, and directly relevant to your research.