What Type of Literature Review Should You Write? A Research Intern’s Perspective

At the start of my research internship, I encountered a familiar academic challenge: determining the appropriate type of literature review to conduct. Initially, this appeared to be a straightforward task; however, I soon recognized that the landscape of review methodologies is far more complex and nuanced than I had anticipated. The choice of review type, rather than being a mere academic formality, has a significant impact on the research's structure, purpose, and outcome.

As a newcomer to formal research, this decision marked a crucial moment in my academic journey. In this article, I aim not only to define the key types of literature reviews but also to reflect on their epistemological foundations, comparative advantages, and the contexts in which they are most effectively applied. I write this not only as a research intern facing these challenges but also as an individual beginning to cultivate the mindset of a critical, methodologically conscious scholar.

Systematic Review: Precision with Protocol

A systematic review is the most rigorous and transparent method of synthesizing evidence to answer a specific research question. It uses pre-registered protocols, comprehensive database searches, strict inclusion and exclusion criteria, and quality appraisal tools to extract, evaluate, and synthesize relevant findings. Often paired with meta-analysis, it is the cornerstone of evidence-based practice.

Theoretical essence: The systematic review embodies the ideal of reproducibility in science; it is method over narrative, rigor over intuition.

When to use it: When the question is narrow, specific, and requires substantial evidence for clinical, policy, or technical decisions.

Frameworks: PRISMA, Cochrane Handbook, JBI Manual

Challenge: Time-consuming and resource-intensive, often requiring a team.

Scoping Review: Mapping the Unknown

Scoping reviews are ideal for exploratory research. They map the extent, range, and nature of research activity on a broader question, without necessarily evaluating the quality of included studies. As such, they are instrumental in new or fragmented fields.

Theoretical essence: Scoping reviews are cartographic—they trace the intellectual topography of a field.

When to use it: When identifying key concepts, definitions, or knowledge gaps in emerging areas.

Frameworks: PRISMA-ScR

Challenge: Less depth in synthesis; sometimes mistaken for a less-rigorous systematic review.

Integrative Review: Bridging Methods, Merging Worlds

Integrative reviews are more than inclusive; they are truly integrative. They allow for the combination of quantitative, qualitative, theoretical, and empirical studies to generate new frameworks or insights.

Theoretical essence: A synthesis of paradigms. Integrative reviews seek coherence across methodologies.

When to use it: When you’re looking to theorize a phenomenon or model complexity across diverse knowledge types.

Challenge: Methodological diversity can become epistemological incoherence if not carefully managed.

Narrative Review: Contextualizing with Voice

Narrative reviews, sometimes called traditional or descriptive reviews, offer a conceptual or thematic overview without a formal protocol. They are shaped by expert judgement and may lack replicability, but they are still valuable for historical, theoretical, or pedagogical purposes.

Theoretical essence: Narrative reviews are hermeneutic—they are interpretive, discursive, and shaped by scholarly voice.

When to use it: When synthesizing background information or outlining theoretical development.

Frameworks: None formalized, but SALSA (Search, Appraisal, Synthesis, Analysis) helps.

Challenge: High risk of bias. Limited use for evidence-based practice.

Rapid Review: Urgency Over Exhaustiveness

Rapid reviews compress the steps of a systematic review to meet the need for timely evidence synthesis. Often used in health emergencies or fast-moving policy fields, they reduce database coverage, reviewer redundancy, or the depth of critical appraisal.

Theoretical essence: A pragmatic compromise between rigor and responsiveness.

When to use it: When time constraints outweigh the need for exhaustive depth.

Frameworks: Adapted PRISMA; no universal protocol

Challenge: Inconsistencies in methods and transparency. Not always publishable in top-tier journals.

Umbrella Review: Meta of the Meta

Umbrella reviews, also known as reviews of reviews, synthesize findings from multiple systematic reviews. They are used to provide high-level overviews of mature topics, where the literature is already saturated with reviews.

Theoretical essence: They operate at the meta-analytic level, aggregating not data, but synthesized conclusions.

When to use it: When aiming to guide clinical practice or policy across broad areas.

Frameworks: Joanna Briggs Institute Umbrella Review Protocols

Challenge: Risk of redundancy or double-counting. It depends on the quality of the included reviews.

Making the Decision: My Path as an Intern

I began my review journey with a broad topic and a sense of intellectual curiosity, but little clarity on how to navigate the terrain. I considered a systematic review, impressed by its rigor, but realized that my research question was not yet narrow or mature enough. An integrative review intrigued me, but I lacked diverse data types to synthesize.

Ultimately, I chose to pursue a scoping review. It allowed me to explore the field, identify gaps, and shape more precise future questions. In doing so, I began to understand that literature reviews are not passive summaries but strategic acts of scholarly positioning.

This decision also made me more aware of review ethics: transparency, reproducibility, and methodological fit. Knowing how to conduct a review isn’t enough; what matters is knowing why and when to choose one type over another.

Final Reflections: On Choosing with Intent

This experience has taught me that selecting a literature review type is not merely a procedural step in the research process; it is a formative decision that shapes the architecture of scholarly inquiry. Each methodology carries distinct assumptions about evidence, scope, and synthesis, and is best suited to specific stages of disciplinary maturity and research intent. What initially felt like a methodological hurdle soon revealed itself as a gateway to deeper epistemological awareness.

Making this decision early in my internship brought more than just structure to my work; it instilled clarity, confidence, and a growing sensitivity to the importance of alignment between research questions and methodological frameworks. I have come to understand literature reviews not as static summaries, but as purposeful acts of knowledge construction. They determine not only what we include but also how we engage, interpret, and advance what has been said.

As I continue to grow in the research environment, I no longer see reviews as passive checklists in academic workflows, but as foundational tools for scholarly contribution. Learning to choose—and justify—that approach has been one of the most instructive and empowering parts of my development as an emerging researcher.