The right literature review method depends on what your research is trying to do, the sources you need to review, your synthesis goal and what your institution permits. Scoping, systematic, narrative, umbrella and policy reviews serve different purposes, so your research question and identified gap should guide the choice.

How Can You Choose The Right Literature Review Method?

A Review Selection Framework can help narrow your options. It covers five review types: scoping reviews, systematic reviews, narrative reviews, umbrella reviews and policy reviews.

The framework uses a branching set of questions. You start at the top, answer each question based on your own research and follow the relevant branch until you reach one or two review types that are plausible for your study. If you reach two plausible options, an additional question helps distinguish between them.

The framework does not provide a final answer. It cannot account for your institution's expectations, what your supervisor considers acceptable or the specific gap your research is trying to fill. Its purpose is to eliminate options that are not viable, so you can have a more focused discussion with your supervisor.

Before using it, you should already have a working understanding of your topic and a preliminary sense of the gap your research is trying to address. If you are still defining your research question, return to the framework once that work is done.

You can download the Review Selection Framework here.

How Do Your Sources Determine Which Review Method You Can Use?

The first question concerns the sources you need to review. Once you have identified the gap your review addresses, you should have a clearer picture of what actually needs reviewing.

Umbrella reviews only review other systematic reviews, while policy reviews focus on policy documents. If you need to review theoretical and discussion papers, a narrative review may be appropriate. If you are reviewing empirical research, the remaining options include scoping, systematic and narrative reviews.

If you need to include other published reviews alongside empirical studies, a scoping or narrative review can accommodate this, although you should check your institution's guidance because some programmes and academics restrict this.

The source type therefore provides an early way to eliminate review methods that cannot accommodate the material you need to examine.

How Does Your Synthesis Goal Affect Your Review Method?

The main concern of your synthesis is another important distinction. If you are interested in how something is conducted or used, such as a drug intervention, therapy, teaching method or experimental technique, a scoping review can be a useful starting point because of its mapping capabilities.

For outcomes, consider exactly what you want to know. If you are interested in the range and variety of outcomes, a scoping review can work well. If you are concerned with effectiveness, success rate or the extent of a positive or negative outcome, a systematic review would be necessary. Comparing interventions for a specific outcome can also suit a systematic review, although a narrative review may achieve this with less rigour.

If your review concerns barriers, facilitators, perceptions or experiences, consider whether you are primarily interested in the range and characteristics of the research or the elements themselves. A scoping review maps the research, while systematic or narrative reviews can focus more closely on the barriers, facilitators or experiences.

What Should You Do Once You Have Chosen A Review Method?

Choosing a review method is not the end of the process.

Step one: Check what your institution permits. Some institutions do not permit narrative reviews at postgraduate level, while some supervisors will not accept them for dissertations requiring a structured methodology chapter. Check before committing to your method.

Step two: Close the loop with your research gap. Your research question identifies something missing, underexplored or unresolved in the field. Your review method needs to be able to address that gap.

The key question to bring to your supervisor is: given my identified gap, how does this review method allow me to address it?

The Review Selection Framework works through elimination and proximal alignment. It narrows your options based on source type, synthesis goal and methodological priority. It is not designed to produce your academic justification. That requires consideration of your gap, study context, topic and the limitations of your chosen method.

How Do You Justify Your Chosen Literature Review Method?

A strong justification requires more than reaching a particular terminal point in a selection framework. You need to consider the gap you have identified, the context of your study, the nuances of your topic and the limitations of the method you have chosen.

This is a discussion to have with your supervisor, and potentially to revisit as your proposal develops.

Review method selection is also only one part of wider research design alignment. Other layers include your epistemological position, methodology, methods, sampling strategy and analysis approach, alongside how these connect back to your research question and identified gap.

If you are still working out whether your review type fits your research, or your supervisor has raised concerns about your choice, one-to-one research support can be used to work through your specific research question, source landscape and supervisor expectations directly.