Why Review the Literature Early
The argument here is about timing, not thoroughness. A review done late becomes a chapter you write to satisfy a requirement; done early, it is the thing that tells you which trade-offs other researchers already made and what they cost.
The humbling step, and why the source says so
The supplied teaching material reproduces an excerpt from a published research methods knowledge base to make the case for reviewing early. It does not open with a productivity argument. It opens with an expectation-setting one.
For a practising project manager this lands differently than it does for a full-time student. You arrive with a question that came out of real delivery experience, and it feels specific to your organisation, your sector and your problem. Discovering that a version of it has been studied repeatedly can read as a threat to the whole project.
It is not. The qualifier in the excerpt is doing the work: thought of before at least to some degree. Prior work on the general shape of your problem is what makes a master's-scale study possible at all — it supplies the constructs, the instruments and the framing, and it leaves you free to spend your limited time on the part that is genuinely open.
"There's nothing on my topic" is almost always a misdiagnosis
The excerpt reports a recurring teaching experience: students say they can find nothing in the literature related to their topic, and in virtually every case the cause is the same. They looked only for articles that were exactly the same as their research topic.
This is a searching error dressed up as a finding about the field, and it is worth recognising because the conclusion it produces — my topic is unstudied, therefore it is original — is both wrong and attractive.
TWO WAYS OF READING THE SAME EMPTY RESULT SET
| What you searched for | What you conclude | What is actually true |
|---|---|---|
| Your exact topic, as a phrase | Nothing has been written on this | Nothing has been written using your phrasing. Almost nothing follows from that |
| Your exact topic, in your sector | My sector is unstudied, so my study is original | The same question may be well studied in adjacent sectors, and that work is directly informative |
| The constructs your topic is built from | There is a substantial related literature and my question sits inside it | This is the position the review is meant to reach — related research, located and read |
The pattern in the first two rows is the one the excerpt reports as recurring. The third row is the corrective the excerpt states: the review is designed to identify related research.
Note what this does to the originality claim. Originality stops resting on the absence of literature — which you cannot prove — and starts resting on a stated gap inside a literature you have demonstrably read. That is a far stronger position and it is the one the review is designed to reach. See identifying the gap in the literature.
The two tips: what to read, and when
The excerpt gives two tips about conducting the review. They are short, and they are not equally weighted — the first is about source selection and the second is the argument this whole page rests on.
The two tips, as stated
Concentrate on the scientific literature
Determine what the most credible research journals in your topical area are and start with those. Put the greatest emphasis on research journals that use a blind review system — articles in those can be expected to have a fairly high level of credibility.
Do the review early in the research process
You are likely to learn a lot in the review that will help you make the trade-offs you will need to face — because previous researchers also had to face trade-off decisions.
The excerpt explains the blind review mechanism directly: authors submit to an editor, who solicits several reviewers willing to give a critical review; the paper is sent with no identification of the author so there is no personal bias either for or against; on the reviewers' recommendations the editor can accept, reject, or ask for revision and resubmission. The full treatment, including how this relates to the broader idea of peer review, is on peer review and blind review.
Four things the review gives you before you design anything
The excerpt names four specific returns. Read them as design inputs — each one changes a decision you would otherwise make on instinct.
The four returns, in the order the source gives them
A quick-start from someone else's review
You may find a study quite similar to the one you are planning. Since all credible research studies have to review the literature themselves, you can check their literature review to get a quick-start on your own. The single highest-yield hour in an early review is spent reading the review chapters of two or three close studies.
The full set of relevant constructs
Prior research helps assure that you include all of the major relevant constructs. You may find that similar studies routinely examine an outcome you had not included — and a study that ignores a major construct would not be judged credible. This is a validity issue, not a completeness preference.
Appropriate measurement instruments
The review helps you find and select instruments, because you see what researchers actually use in contexts similar to yours. Adopting an instrument that has been used and reported before is cheaper than building one and easier to defend.
Forewarning of common problems
The review helps you anticipate common problems in your research context — you can use the prior experience of others to avoid common traps and pitfalls. Published limitations sections are the cheapest risk register available to you.
Returns two and three land directly on your design decisions, which is precisely why the timing argument matters: both are useless after the instrument is written and the data are collected. That work is set out on designing your research.
Trade-offs are the reason early is the operative word
The second tip's justification is the sharpest sentence in the excerpt: previous researchers also had to face trade-off decisions. Every published study is a record of somebody choosing between rigour and practicality under constraints — and unlike your own future choices, theirs come with results attached.
TRADE-OFFS YOU FACE, AND WHERE THE LITERATURE HAS ALREADY PRICED THEM
| Decision in front of you | What comparable published work tells you | Cost of deciding it without the review |
|---|---|---|
| Survey, interviews, or both | What designs similar studies used, and what they said about response and access in their limitations | A design chosen on convenience that a reader can immediately compare unfavourably with precedent |
| Which outcomes to measure | The constructs that comparable studies routinely include | A study missing a major construct, which the excerpt states would not be judged credible |
| Which instrument to use | Instruments already used in contexts similar to yours, with their reported behaviour | A home-built instrument you have to justify from first principles, with no comparison available |
| How much access to negotiate, and with whom | The access problems others reported, usually in the limitations section | Discovering an access constraint after your design depends on it |
The four decision rows are a working application of the excerpt's trade-off argument. The excerpt itself names the principle and the four returns; it does not supply this table.
Running an early pass alongside delivery work
The practical objection to reviewing early is that you do not yet know enough to read efficiently. That is true, and it is not a reason to delay — it is a reason to make the first pass a different activity from the full review. The following division is offered as synthesis; the source does not set out a schedule.
- First pass — before the designLocate two or three close studies and read their literature reviews and limitations sections. Harvest constructs, instruments and named problems. You are reading for orientation, not coverage.
- Second pass — while the design is formingWiden from constructs to the related literatures around them. This is where the shape of the field, its key writers and its prevailing theories become visible.
- Third pass — as the review is writtenTargeted reading to close specific holes the writing exposes. Searching does not stop when writing starts; the writing is what tells you what is still missing.
The daily habits that make this sustainable when research runs alongside a delivery role — scanning, annotating, writing a paragraph a day, keeping references as you go — are covered on checking the literature for your topic.
What to carry forward
- Expect the humbling result. Almost any worthwhile idea has been thought of before at least to some degree, and that is what makes a scoped study possible.
- "Nothing exists on my topic" is nearly always a search error — you looked for your exact topic instead of related research. Strip the local specifics out and search the constructs underneath.
- Concentrate on the scientific literature and give the greatest weight to journals using blind review; the source gives no method for identifying which journals those are.
- Four returns: a quick-start from another study's review, the complete set of relevant constructs, appropriate measurement instruments, and forewarning of common problems.
- Early is the operative word because two of the four returns are worthless once your instrument is built and your data collected.
Frequently asked questions
How early is early?
The excerpt says only that the review is one of the most important early steps and should be done early in the research process. It names no point, duration or sufficiency test. In practice, a first orientation pass belongs before the design decisions it is meant to inform — particularly the choice of constructs and instruments.
I searched and found nothing on my topic. What now?
Assume the search is at fault before assuming the field is empty; that is what the excerpt reports as the near-universal cause. Remove your organisation, sector and timeframe from the search terms, identify the general constructs your topic is built from, and search those separately — including in disciplines outside your own.
Does finding a similar study mean my topic is dead?
No — the excerpt treats it as an advantage. A close study gives you a ready-made review to quick-start from, a set of validated constructs, an instrument, and a limitations section describing problems you can now avoid. Your contribution then rests on a stated gap rather than on an unprovable claim of novelty.
What is a blind review and why does it matter here?
The paper is sent to reviewers with no identification of the author so there is no personal bias for or against them; on their recommendations the editor accepts, rejects, or asks for revision and resubmission. The excerpt says articles in journals with blind review processes can be expected to have a fairly high level of credibility, and advises placing the greatest emphasis on them.
Is this the same source as the material on where topics come from?
Same reference work, different excerpt. One passage covers where research problems originate and whether a study is feasible; this one covers conducting the literature review. They are separate passages and should be cited separately, even though their arguments about trade-offs connect.
What if I have already collected data and not done the review?
Two of the four returns — the full set of constructs and the choice of instrument — are no longer available to you, and a missing major construct is the one the excerpt says would cost a study its credibility. Do the review anyway; it still supplies the framing and the gap, and it tells you which limitations you now have to declare.
References and source attribution
- Trochim, W. M. K. 2006, Research Methods Knowledge Base (http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/probform.php) — the source of the excerpt on conducting the literature review reproduced in the supplied teaching material. A separate excerpt from the same work is used elsewhere in the material for the origins of research problems and feasibility.
- The supplied teaching source: master's-level teaching material on reviewing the literature, supplied as a teaching document, accompanying slides and printed study notes.
- O'Leary, Z. 2017, The Essential Guide to Doing Your Research Project, 3rd ed., Sage Publications, London — listed among the reference works cited by the supplied source.
- Bryman, A. 2016, Social Research Methods, 5th ed., Oxford University Press, Oxford — listed among the reference works cited by the supplied source.
Suggested questions for Ask KEVOS
- Why should I do the literature review early in the research process?
- What do I do if I cannot find anything published on my research topic?
- What are the four things a literature review gives me before I design my study?
- Why does the source emphasise journals with blind review?
- How do trade-off decisions in published studies help me design my own?