Differentiating the Review of Related Literature and Related Studies

Abstract

Abstract The terms Review of Related Literature (RRL) and Review of Related Studies (RRS) are widely used in academic research, yet their meanings and structural relationship remain inconsistently understood. This qualitative exploratory study examined how graduate students and research practitioners conceptualized and differentiated RRL and RRS. Data consisted of 24 encoded responses from eight research practitioners and 16 graduate students, supplemented by document analysis of research papers, theses, and dissertations published from 2021 to 2026. Investigator triangulation and inductive thematic analysis were used to identify recurring interpretations and terminological patterns. Findings showed that 62.5% of respondents viewed RRL and RRS as distinguishable components, with RRL emphasizing theories, concepts, and broader scholarly knowledge and RRS focusing on empirical methods and findings. Conversely, 37.5% regarded the terms as integrated, context-dependent, or institution-specific. Document analysis further identified five labels for literature-review sections: Review of Related Literature, Review of Related Studies, Review of Related Research, Review of Related Works, and Review of Related Literature and Studies. These labels did not consistently represent distinct review methodologies. The study concludes that RRL and RRS are conceptually distinguishable but not universally separate components. Their organization should reflect disciplinary conventions, institutional purposes, research design, and publication requirements rather than rigid terminology.