The body of the review contains your review of the literature relevant to your research question or aim. You should structure the body of your literature review in a logical and coherent way. Consider what your sub-topics or sections will be in order to answer your research question thoroughly and coherently. Then consider the most logical order to discuss your sections. Creating sub-headings for the sections of your review will assist you in creating a logical structure and keep you focused on sub-topics relevant to your research aim.
In the body of your literature review, it is important to analyse the literature rather than to merely describe the findings of a number of different literature sources. Some description of the key findings is important to give the reader context. However, your review should also include an analysis of the key themes, gaps in understanding, and points of disagreement between the different literature sources.
There are numerous ways to organise your body paragraphs, depending on your topic. You may want to organise some of your paragraphs:
- in chronological order, e.g. historical findings, more recent findings, current research
- group your literature sources into paragraphs based on similar arguments or findings
- categorise your sources into similar sub-topics and compare different findings within a single paragraph.
Remember to include accurate and relevant citations and references throughout this section.
The assignment excerpt below is an example of how to group similar findings together.
Body paragraph example 1
Body text | Comments |
---|
Multiple studies have found evidence supporting an increase in crop growth in an environment of elevated CO2. In their research, Cai et al. (2016) attributed this to enhanced leaf photosynthesis in C3 species like wheat when exposed to such an increase in the concentration of CO2 in the ambient air. In addition, Hӧgy and Frangmeier (2008) observed an acceleration of wheat growth ‘productivity’ under CO2 enrichment, the amplification of these processes ultimately leading to enhanced crop growth. Wang et al. (2016) supported these studies, completing a research project of wheat growth under elevated atmospheres of CO2 concentrations up to 500ppm. Comparing wheat crop growth under elevated CO2 conditions with those in ambient conditions, Wang et al. (2016) were able to significantly demonstrate that increases in atmospheric carbon could improve grain growth up to 8%. | This paragraph describes similar findings from multiple literature sources. Note the language used to highlight the fact that these are all similar findings, including “multiple studies”, “in addition” and “supported these studies”. |
However, with CO2 elevation comes a myriad of other abiotic factors, including a rise in average temperature (Dahal et al., 2014). During an experiment of wheat growth in CO2 rich atmospheres by Hӧgy et al. (2009) the plants experienced a growing season with a mean temperature 1.8℃ higher than in previous years. Concurrently the crop experiences a shorter growth period, finishing their growth cycle earlier than normal. The rise in temperature, while hastening growth time, had a negative effect on crop yield and quality, suggesting that while elevated CO2 may increase growth processes, accompanying abiotic influences such as temperature increases may be detrimental to crop growth. Asseng et. al. (2013) supported this, contending that their predictive models indicate negative overall impacts on wheat crops at higher levels of warming as a result of CO2 increases. | The use of the word “however” indicates to the reader that this paragraph presents contrasting findings to the previous paragraph. In this case, the first paragraph discussed findings of increased wheat growth in the presence of increased CO2. The second paragraph discusses multiple findings that show negative effects on wheat quality at higher temperatures, which are associated with increased CO2. |
Another method of organising your body paragraphs is to group papers together that have found different or contradictory results related to the same topic. This helps you to demonstrate your understanding of the literature and highlights the inconsistencies between findings. The assignment body paragraph below is an example of how this can be done.
Body paragraph example 2
Body text | Comments |
---|
In order to carry out self-regulation, patients must be able and encouraged to exert their autonomy, and be supported in such a way that they develop internalised motivations to do so, as suggested by SDT. Gourlan et. al. (2014) support this, demonstrating that amongst obese adolescents, incidence of physical activity was increased when individuals experienced a supervised exercise session that supported their autonomous needs. Patients were assumed to have performed such self-regulation due to the intrinsic origin of motivation to complete such tasks (Gourlan et al., 2014). However, not all literature supports this conclusion. Sripada et al. (2016) presents contrary evidence, demonstrating that no aspects of SDT needs (i.e. autonomy, competence, relatedness and intrinsic motivation) are related to treatment adherence, which requires an element of self-regulation. | This paragraph describes some discrepancy between different findings related to Self-Determination Theory needs (including motivation and autonomy) and the maintenance of healthy behaviours such as exercise and treatment adherence. |