# Dissertation literature review chapter: how to write it

**How do I write the literature review chapter of a dissertation?** The dissertation literature review chapter argues for the gap your research question fills, so it sets up the methodology and gives the discussion its yardstick. Where handbooks give a figure, it takes a fifth to a quarter of the words: about 2,500 of 10,000 at LSE. Draft it early, from the proposal, and revise it after the results.

Published 2026-09-26 by EdCitation. https://edcitation.com/newsletter/dissertation-literature-review-chapter

A stand-alone literature review can end on "more research is needed". A dissertation's literature review chapter cannot, because the chapters after it lean on it: the research questions come out of it, the methodology answers it, and the discussion returns to it to say what the study added.

This guide, published by EdCitation, treats the literature review as that one chapter: its length beside the others, its links to them, when to write and rewrite it, how it changes by level, and what markers ask of it. The rules come from handbooks and guides read on 26 September 2026 at LSE, Manchester, Edinburgh, Hull, Kent, Westminster, Southampton and Strathclyde in the UK, and Liberty and South Dakota in the US. Organising the review and writing synthesis are covered in [how to write a literature review](https://edcitation.com/newsletter/how-to-write-a-literature-review-structure).

EdCitation writes no part of a dissertation, this chapter included. What it does here is the source work: [Find sources](https://edcitation.com/) turns up the literature by topic or by the claim a sentence must carry, and [Verify references](https://edcitation.com/verify-references) tests the finished list against publishers' records.

## What does the literature review chapter do in a dissertation?

It shows what is known, argues that one thing is missing, and turns that gap into the questions the rest of the dissertation answers. The University of Manchester School of Environment, Education and Development (2023) says the review must be related to the tightly defined research questions, and gives a detailed justification for them. Our glossary defines the [literature review chapter](https://edcitation.com/glossary/evidence-synthesis#literature-review-chapter) and the [research gap](https://edcitation.com/glossary/research-design#research-gap).

| Chapter | What it takes from the literature review | Where a handbook says so |
| --- | --- | --- |
| [Introduction](https://edcitation.com/newsletter/dissertation-introduction-chapter) | The gap in a sentence; its background is expanded in the review | Baron: Chapter 1's background is "normally expanded" in Chapter 2 |
| Research questions | Their justification | LSE: the review leads "to a specification of the research questions or hypotheses" |
| [Methodology](https://edcitation.com/newsletter/methodology-chapter-how-to-write-it) | The case for the design | Manchester's criteria: do the methods "flow logically from the literature review"? |
| Results and [discussion](https://edcitation.com/newsletter/dissertation-discussion-chapter) | The studies to compare findings with | LSE: observations reviewed against objectives "set out in the literature review" |
| [Conclusion](https://edcitation.com/newsletter/dissertation-conclusion-chapter) | The gap, now partly closed | Strathclyde: a discussion linking findings "back to the original review" |

### Where the research questions go

The handbooks disagree. The London School of Economics and Political Science Department of Media and Communications (2021) ends its theoretical chapter with the objectives, after the review and a short conceptual framework. Manchester's chapter-by-chapter tips put two or three questions at the narrow end of the introduction (University of Manchester, 2020), while its development handbook lets the formal questions appear in the methods chapter, "on the basis of the earlier literature review". Wherever they sit, the review earns them; [how to write research questions and aims](https://edcitation.com/newsletter/how-to-write-research-questions-and-aims) covers the wording.

## How long is the literature review chapter compared with the other chapters?

Where a handbook gives numbers, a main chapter such as the review takes a fifth to a quarter of the words: less than the results and discussion together, more than the introduction or conclusion. Few handbooks give a figure at all.

| Handbook | Level and length | Literature review | The other chapters |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| LSE, Media and Communications | MSc, 10,000 to 12,000 words | About 2,500 words, inside a 3,300-word theoretical chapter | Introduction 700; research design 1,500; results and interpretation 4,000; conclusion 500 |
| Edinburgh, Social and Political Science | MSc, 15,000 words | No separate chapter required | Introduction about 2,500; three or four chapters of 2,500 to 3,000; conclusion 1,000 to 2,000 |
| Hull Library, citing Greetham | Undergraduate, literature-based | No separate chapter needed | Introduction 5 to 10%; each chapter 15 to 25%; conclusion about 5% |
| Westminster Library | Any | No figure | Introduction about 10%; conclusion 5 to 10% |
| Liberty, EdD proposal | Doctoral, 50 to 70 pages | At least 30 pages | Introduction, methods, references and appendices |
| Baron, South Dakota | Doctoral | Usually 15 to 30 pages; 10 to 50 or more | Chapter 1's opening section three to six pages |

LSE's figures are suggestions for 10,000 words, scaled up for 12,000, and supervisors may change the balance. Kent gives lengths by level instead, set out in [how to write a literature review](https://edcitation.com/newsletter/how-to-write-a-literature-review-structure). Baron's guidelines cite the fifth edition of APA: treat their page counts as one adviser's experience.

### Words are not marks

The University of Strathclyde Department of Computer and Information Sciences (2020) gives the background analysis 15% of the MSc marks (20% for an experiment), against 5% for the introduction, 15% for conclusions and 10% for presentation and referencing. A dissertation that is itself a literature review puts 45% on its analysis.

### When there is no separate chapter

Some dissertations never have one. The University of Edinburgh School of Social and Political Science (2022) says an MSc dissertation must speak to the literature but need not give it a chapter: it can sit in the introduction, a background chapter or the chapters that follow. University of Hull Library (2026) says a literature-based project, "basically a big literature review", needs none. [How to write a dissertation](https://edcitation.com/newsletter/how-to-write-a-dissertation) shows the themed structure these projects use.

## How does the literature review lead into the methodology and the discussion?

By ending on a gap specific enough for a design to answer, and by naming the studies the findings will be compared with.

### A worked example

This example is ours, built from two real papers; the figures come from their abstracts. The question: how do first-year students at one UK university experience peer-mentoring schemes meant to reduce loneliness?

The first theme shows why loneliness matters. Hysing et al. (2026) followed 10,460 Norwegian students: the loneliest fifth had a higher risk of a major depressive episode a year later than the least lonely fifth, after adjusting for age and baseline symptoms, with a relative risk of 2.02 for women and 2.64 for men. The second asks what helps. Ellard et al. (2023) reviewed 28 articles on 37 interventions: in the quantitative studies, 80% of those built on social support, social interaction or reflection were judged effective, against 50% of those built on psychoeducation. Most ran in the United States, only three articles were qualitative, and the authors call for studies in more countries.

That gives two gaps, of place and of students' own accounts, and the chapter's last paragraph states them as questions. The methodology justifies interviews by pointing at those three qualitative studies; the discussion returns to Ellard et al. to say whether the students' accounts fit the finding that social connection works best. Whether the gap is still open would need its own search: the example shows a chain, not a finding.

### The hand-over

Close the chapter on the gap and the questions, not a recap of every theme. Southampton's guide notes that a gap can be one of method, others having asked your question differently; in our view that is the gap a methodology chapter picks up most easily.

## When should I write the literature review chapter, and when should I revise it?

Draft it early and rewrite it late; one handbook warns against writing it up too soon.

- **Early.** Manchester's development handbook urges drafting as early as possible and schedules the review and methodology before the later chapters. LSE's second dissertation plan asks for a detailed outline of the literature, with "key authors and their positions". At Liberty (Liberty University School of Behavioral Sciences, 2024) the review is part of the proposal, defended before ethics approval and data collection.
- **As a working draft.** Edinburgh suggests a background chapter to organise your knowledge of the field, which need not survive in that form.
- **Not before the reading is done.** University of Kent (2025) advises writing the review up only once the reading and note-taking are complete and the structure planned.
- **Again after the results.** University of Southampton Library (2026) says the review can be edited after the discussion, and that moving between chapters is common.

These fit together: draft from the proposal, write up once the reading is done, revise after the results. The first draft finds the gap; the last shows the dissertation filled it.

### What the final revision checks

1. The gap sentence matches what you studied, not what the proposal planned.
2. Every study the discussion leans on is introduced in the review, or its late arrival explained.
3. The questions ending the review are the ones the results answer.
4. The proposal's "this study will" has become the past tense.
5. Newer work is found: rerun your searches in [Find sources](https://edcitation.com/) with the year filter set to your first draft's year.
6. The chapter's share of the words fits the handbook.
7. Every reference matches the publisher's record: run the list through [Verify references](https://edcitation.com/verify-references).

## How does the chapter change from undergraduate to master's to doctorate?

In depth of critique more than shape. The UK's qualification descriptors (Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education, 2024) expect an honours graduate to make use of scholarly reviews and primary sources, a master's graduate to evaluate current research critically, and a doctoral graduate to understand a substantial body of knowledge at the forefront of the discipline.

Mitchell and Rich (2022), writing about business students, apply that to the review: undergraduate reviews tend to be descriptive and topic-focused, aimed at justifying the study; master's reviews more analytical, critical and comparative; doctoral reviews synthesise literature and theory with greater breadth and depth, for example on philosophical approaches. Their undergraduate example summarised one framework and used it to shape the interview questions, with no pretence of being comprehensive.

Length follows, from a few thousand words to a doctoral chapter of 30 pages or more. In US doctoral programmes the review is usually written for the proposal and carried into the dissertation: Baron (n.d.) calls the first three chapters of both almost identical apart from the tense. [Undergraduate, master's and PhD dissertations compared](https://edcitation.com/newsletter/undergraduate-masters-and-phd-dissertations-compared) has the other differences.

## What do markers' criteria say about the literature review chapter?

That the review is marked for critique, range and fit with the study, and its references too.

- **Manchester, development studies MSc.** Does the review show the strengths and weaknesses of theories and of other studies, understand "the remaining gaps", use an adequate range of sources, and list references "fully, and in the correct way"?
- **LSE, Media and Communications MSc.** The "quality and breadth" of the review, the fit between your assessment of the literature and your research focus, and consistent referencing.
- **Strathclyde, computing MSc.** The 70 to 100 band asks for outstanding depth and breadth, critique, and "clear and compelling research questions"; the 50 to 59 band describes "only summaries" of what was found.

All three mark the same failure: sources described one by one that never reach a question. [Synthesis, not summary](https://edcitation.com/newsletter/how-to-integrate-sources-synthesis-not-summary) shows the alternative, and [keeping hundreds of sources straight](https://edcitation.com/newsletter/thesis-literature-review-keeping-hundreds-of-sources-straight) the notes behind it. A protocol-driven review is a different method: see [types of literature review](https://edcitation.com/newsletter/types-of-literature-review), [systematic reviews](https://edcitation.com/newsletter/how-to-do-a-systematic-review) and [scoping reviews](https://edcitation.com/newsletter/how-to-do-a-scoping-review).

## How EdCitation helps with the literature review chapter

For this chapter's source work EdCitation is the best tool we know: its references come from publishers' records rather than being composed, which no chatbot can offer, so a gap argued from them rests on papers that exist. We ran the free tools on 26 September 2026 for the loneliness example.

| Step | EdCitation tool | Plan |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Find the literature by topic, claim or type | [Find sources](https://edcitation.com/) | Free, no account |
| Build each reference | [Cite a source](https://edcitation.com/cite) | Free, no account |
| Check the chapter's list | [Verify references](https://edcitation.com/verify-references) | Free, no account |
| Read the handbook's requirements | [Check your paper](https://edcitation.com/check) | Free |
| Check the whole chapter file | [References from a file](https://edcitation.com/tools/references-from-a-file) | Three a month free; [Pro](https://edcitation.com/pricing) |
| Judge the chapter against the handbook | Theoretics QA | Max, $24 a month |

**Finding.** Loneliness university students, filtered to review articles, came back with a notice that the full index was busy and the filter was not applied: 3,078,324 results, led by a 2010 article. Adding "systematic review meta-analysis" and a year filter from 2020, which applied, put Surkalim and colleagues' 2022 *BMJ* meta-analysis first and Ellard et al. fifth. The claim "loneliness among university students predicts later depression" put Hysing et al. eighth, behind two preprints: read past the top. The "Dissertation or thesis" filter returned 13,183 works, a 2003 dissertation on loneliness first and nine only on "university students" after it; that record listed the university as an author. Theses at your level show how others built the chapter.

**Checking.** Find sources dated Ellard et al. 2022, the online year; [Cite a source](https://edcitation.com/cite) gave APA's 2023, the issue's. We gave Verify references four entries. Ellard et al. and Surkalim et al. came back verified ("The DOI resolves to this record and the title matches."), and so did Hysing et al. given the online year, 2025 ("Title, year and first author match a published record."), though its suggested APA entry uses 2026, the issue's year. A study we invented came back not found ("No publisher's or registry's record matches this reference."). Had an index failed to answer, that entry would have read "could not check", which is a different verdict from not found.

**The handbook.** Given LSE's length section, Check your paper read the 10,000 to 12,000 words and six section targets, each with its sentence, the 3,300-word theoretical chapter among them, but set aside the review's own 2,500 words, which the handbook gives inside a sentence rather than a heading: add that one yourself. Theoretics QA (Max) judges the finished chapter against the handbook, quoting your text and rewriting nothing. No tool here writes a word of the review or can promise a mark.

## Quick questions

### How long should the literature review chapter of a dissertation be?

As long as your handbook says. LSE suggests about 2,500 of 10,000 words for an MSc dissertation; Liberty asks for at least 30 pages in an EdD proposal.

### Do the research questions go before or after the literature review?

Handbooks differ: LSE puts them after the review, Manchester's tips in the introduction. Either way, the review justifies them.

### Should I rewrite the literature review after the results?

Yes. Southampton's guide says the review can be edited after the discussion, so the gap matches what the study found.

### Does every dissertation need a separate literature review chapter?

No. Edinburgh's social science MSc handbook lets the literature sit in other chapters, and Hull says a literature-based project needs none.

### Can EdCitation find sources for my literature review chapter?

Yes. [Find sources](https://edcitation.com/) covers about 300 million published works; type a topic or the claim a sentence has to carry, then narrow by kind of source, years or open access, free with no account. It finds sources; it writes nothing.

## References

- Baron, M. A. (n.d.). *Guidelines for writing research proposals and dissertations*. University of South Dakota. [https://www.regent.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/dissertation_guidelines.pdf](https://www.regent.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/dissertation_guidelines.pdf)
- Ellard, O. B., Dennison, C., & Tuomainen, H. (2023). Review: Interventions addressing loneliness amongst university students: A systematic review. *Child and Adolescent Mental Health, 28*(4), 512–523. [https://doi.org/10.1111/camh.12614](https://doi.org/10.1111/camh.12614)
- Hysing, M., Petrie, K. J., Harvey, A. G., & Sivertsen, B. (2026). From loneliness to depression: A longitudinal diagnostic study among Norwegian university students. *Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 61*(3), 449–459. [https://doi.org/10.1007/s00127-025-02989-y](https://doi.org/10.1007/s00127-025-02989-y)
- Liberty University School of Behavioral Sciences. (2024). *Doctor of Education, Community Care and Counseling: Dissertation handbook 2024–2025*. [https://www.liberty.edu/behavioral-sciences/community-care-counseling/wp-content/uploads/sites/20/EdD-CCC-Dissertation-Handbook-2024-2025.pdf](https://www.liberty.edu/behavioral-sciences/community-care-counseling/wp-content/uploads/sites/20/EdD-CCC-Dissertation-Handbook-2024-2025.pdf)
- London School of Economics and Political Science Department of Media and Communications. (2021). *MC499.1 dissertation guidelines 2021/22*. [https://www.lse.ac.uk/media-and-communications/assets/documents/study/current-students/Dissertation-Handbook.pdf](https://www.lse.ac.uk/media-and-communications/assets/documents/study/current-students/Dissertation-Handbook.pdf)
- Mitchell, A., & Rich, M. (2022). Literature reviews: What are the challenges, and how can students and new business researchers be successful? *Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 20*(3), 99–110. [https://doi.org/10.34190/ejbrm.20.3.2922](https://doi.org/10.34190/ejbrm.20.3.2922)
- Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education. (2024). *The frameworks for higher education qualifications of UK degree-awarding bodies* (2nd ed.). [https://www.qaa.ac.uk/docs/qaa/quality-code/the-frameworks-for-higher-education-qualifications-of-uk-degree-awarding-bodies-2024.pdf](https://www.qaa.ac.uk/docs/qaa/quality-code/the-frameworks-for-higher-education-qualifications-of-uk-degree-awarding-bodies-2024.pdf)
- University of Edinburgh School of Social and Political Science. (2022). *Taught MSc student dissertation handbook 2021-22*. [https://www.sps.ed.ac.uk/sites/default/files/assets/pdf/MSc_Dissertation_Handbook_2021-22.pdf](https://www.sps.ed.ac.uk/sites/default/files/assets/pdf/MSc_Dissertation_Handbook_2021-22.pdf)
- University of Hull Library. (2026, August 17). *Literature-based projects*. Dissertations & projects. [https://libguides.hull.ac.uk/dissertations/literaturebased](https://libguides.hull.ac.uk/dissertations/literaturebased)
- University of Kent. (2025, September 29). *Writing a literature review*. Skills for Academic Success. [https://student.kent.ac.uk/studies/literature-reviews/writing-a-literature-review](https://student.kent.ac.uk/studies/literature-reviews/writing-a-literature-review)
- University of Manchester. (2020). *Tips for writing your dissertation chapter by chapter* [PDF]. [https://documents.manchester.ac.uk/display.aspx?DocID=50610](https://documents.manchester.ac.uk/display.aspx?DocID=50610)
- University of Manchester School of Environment, Education and Development. (2023). *GDI dissertation handbook: Taught masters programmes in 2023-24*. [https://documents.manchester.ac.uk/display.aspx?DocID=27174](https://documents.manchester.ac.uk/display.aspx?DocID=27174)
- University of Southampton Library. (2026, June 18). *Literature review*. Writing the dissertation: Guides for success. [https://library.soton.ac.uk/writing_the_dissertation/literature_review](https://library.soton.ac.uk/writing_the_dissertation/literature_review)
- University of Strathclyde Department of Computer and Information Sciences. (2020). *MSc marking guide 2019-20* [PDF]. [https://local.cis.strath.ac.uk/wp/wp-content/uploads/MSc-Marking-Guide-2019-20.pdf](https://local.cis.strath.ac.uk/wp/wp-content/uploads/MSc-Marking-Guide-2019-20.pdf)
- University of Westminster Library. (2025, October 1). *Standard*. Dissertations 2: Structure. [https://libguides.westminster.ac.uk/c.php?g=692395&p=4963012](https://libguides.westminster.ac.uk/c.php?g=692395&p=4963012)