Mick Healey, HEALEY HE CONSULTANTS, mhealey@glos.ac.

uk
Ruth L. Healey, UNIVERSITY OF CHESTER, r.healey@chester.ac.uk

Reviewing the Literature on Scholarship of Teaching and

Learning (SoTL): An Academic Literacies Perspective
Part 2

ABSTRACT
There are few sources that critically evaluate the ways of reviewing the literature on
scholarship of teaching and learning (SoTL). We use an academic literacies perspective as a
lens with which to explore the ways that literature reviews may be undertaken. While
reviewing the literature is often presented as a scientific, objective process, the reality is much
messier, nuanced, and iterative. It is a complex, context-dependent procedure. We provide a
practical, critical guide to undertaking SoTL literature reviews.
We distinguish between embedded reviews that present a review contextualising the
research that follows, as in most SoTL articles; and freestanding reviews that synthesise
research on specific topics. We discuss the nature of embedded reviews, and evaluate
systematic and narrative review approaches to undertaking freestanding reviews. We contend
that the claims of the superiority of systematic reviews are unjustified. It is important that
contextually-sensitive judgements and interpretation of texts associated with narrative
reviews are seen as central to the reviewing process, and as a strength rather than a weakness.
This article complements a separate one, where we apply an academic literacies lens
to reviewing the literature on searching the SoTL literature. Together, they present a narrative
review of searching and reviewing the SoTL literature undertaken systematically. We call for
studies investigating the lived experiences of SoTL scholars. We illustrate this argument with
an auto-ethnographic account of the often-serendipitous nature of our hunt for sources in
preparing this review and the way our thinking and writing evolved during the writing of the
two articles.

KEYWORDS
SoTL literature reviews, academic literacies, embedded versus freestanding reviews, narrative
versus systematic reviews, lived experience of undertaking literature searches and reviews

INTRODUCTION
In the last decade we have witnessed a rapid growth in the volume of literature on the scholarship
of teaching and learning (SoTL). Despite a drop in 2021 in the number of hits on Google Scholar for all
items including “scholarship of teaching” OR SoTL (possibly due to the impact of COVID), the number
of hits overall more than doubled between 2011–2020 (124%) (Figure 1). Data such as these leads to
the argument that “it may be time to spend more effort on synthesising and disseminating what we have
already learnt, rather than, or before, undertaking fresh research” (Tight 2018a, 607).

CC-BY-NC License 4.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons – Attribution
License 4.0 International which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,
provided the original work is properly attributed.
Healey, M., Healey, R. L.

Figure 1. Hits on Google Scholar for SoTL, 2011–21

8000

7000

6000
Number of hits

5000

4000

3000

2000

1000

0
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Year

Source: Google Scholar—All items including “Scholarship of Teaching” OR SoTL

Fink (2020, 6) succinctly defines a literature review as a “systematic, explicit, and reproducible
method for identifying, evaluating, and synthesising the existing body of completed and recorded work
produced by researchers, scholars, and practitioners.” Reviewing the SoTL literature is influenced by the
nature of the conversation to which you want to contribute (Healey, Matthews, and Cook-Sather 2019;
2020). The search for literature is closely related to the review process, as the type and purpose of the
review affects what literature is searched and how. We discuss the nature of the SoTL literature search
process in a complementary article (Healey, M. and Healey, R. L. 2023). In the current article we focus
primarily on the different approaches to synthesising the literature.
There is an extensive literature about reviewing academic literature; some are general, others are
specific to particular disciplines or approaches (e.g., Bell and Waters 2018; Gough, Oliver, and Thomas
2017; Hart 2018; Healey, R. L. and Healey, M. 2023; Jesson, Matheson, and Lacey 2011; Torraco
2016). However, there are few critical evaluations of how to go about synthesising what we already know
about the literature on SoTL (Chick 2016; Daniel and Harland 2018; MacMillan 2018; Minocha 2021).
The similarities and differences between SoTL and higher education research have been the
subject of much debate (e.g., Case 2015; Larsson et al. 2017). Geertsema (2016) suggests that a key
distinction lies in the purposes of the scholarly inquiry being conducted. In SoTL, the prime purpose is
to improve teaching and learning for the group of students being studied; in educational research, the
fundamental goal is generalizable knowledge. Tight (2021), in his synthesis of higher education research
reviews, includes SoTL as just one aspect of research into teaching and learning, which, unfortunately,
he dismisses in less than a page. For the purposes of this paper, we are pragmatic and accept that those
who use the term SoTL are practising it, but we recognize that others may be practising SoTL without
using the term. SoTL is inherently an interdisciplinary field. However, “SoTL discourse typically refers
to education as being empirical, social science research” (Miller-Young and Yeo 2015, 39).
The founding co-editors of Teaching & Learning Inquiry observe that one of the most common
reasons reviewers recommend revisions or rejection is “the need for a stronger grounding in relevant

Healey, Mick, and Ruth L. Healey. 2023. “Reviewing the Literature on Scholarship of Teaching and Learning 2
(SoTL): An Academic Literacies Perspective Part 2.” Teaching & Learning Inquiry 11.
https://doi.org/10.20343/teachlearninqu.11.5
 REVIEWING THE LITERATURE ON SCHOLARSHIP OF TEACHING AND LEARNING (SOTL)

research on teaching and learning—an effective SoTL lit review” (Chick 2016). Most discipline-based
scholars do not receive training in reviewing educational literature. Experienced faculty “see knowledge
in social and conversational terms” (Fister 2015, 92), but students and faculty new to SoTL may feel
marginalised by such conversations and need support to build their confidence to participate. Many who
come to SoTL are unfamiliar with how to synthesise the literature, as well as sometimes grappling with
new methods and genres (Chick et al. 2014). Hence, critically reviewing the literature is an important
way of developing their identities as SoTL scholars (Healey, Matthews, and Cook-Sather 2019; 2020).
We distinguish between embedded reviews that present a review contextualising the research that
follows, as in most SoTL research articles, and freestanding reviews that synthesise research on specific
topics. We go on to make a distinction between narrative and systematic freestanding reviews (Byrne
2016). Whereas the former involves telling a structured story based on themes identified from reading
the literature, the latter is a method of undertaking a review that follows a set of clearly defined stages,
beginning with a narrowly delimited research question or hypothesis. We contend that some of the
claims of the superiority of systematic reviews are unjustified. They have different purposes, and both are
needed to explore the rapidly evolving literature on SoTL.
Our aim in writing this paper is to provide a practical but critical guide that demystifies the process
of writing a SoTL literature review. As already noted, we analyse how to go about searching the literature
in a separate article where we undertake a critical review of what has been written about searching the
literature on SoTL (Healey, M. and Healey, R. L. 2023). We adopt an academic literacies perspective to
frame the discussion in both papers. Our argument is that searching and reviewing the literature is part
of the socially constructed process of producing and understanding knowledge that is linked to the
identities and values of SoTL scholars (Lea 2017). At the end of this paper, we illustrate our argument
about the importance of adopting an academic literacies framework to both searching and reviewing the
literature with an auto-ethnographic account of the often-serendipitous nature of our hunt for sources
and the way our thinking and writing evolved during the writing of the two articles.
Undertaking literature searches and reviews can be challenging and dispiriting, especially when
you appear to be drowning in a huge volume of literature. However, recognising that there may be
several different ways to achieve your goals, and being realistic as to what is possible given the resources
you have, can help ameliorate these concerns. Moreover, exploring topics that fascinate you is a voyage
of discovery. They can give you an enormous amount of pleasure and satisfaction as you learn about new
ideas and explore a variety of ways to communicate your fresh understandings.

You can “meet new friends” who share your thinking, push your understanding, give you
inspiration, or even make you angry . . . In SoTL land, the literature review joy is discovering how
to be, and become, a teacher, learner, librarian, . . . and connecting you to a community of practice
(Matthews, personal communication, 9 March 2022).

ACADEMIC LITERACIES PERSPECTIVE ON SOTL LITERATURE REVIEWS

We adopt an academic literacies perspective in this article, as we discuss more fully in our paper on
searching the literature (Healey, M. and Healey, R. L. 2023). We have extended the view that academic
reading, writing, and meaning-making are socially constructed processes, to include searching and
reviewing SoTL literature (Weller 2011). We have also extended this perspective from supporting

Healey, Mick, and Ruth L. Healey. 2023. “Reviewing the Literature on Scholarship of Teaching and Learning 3
(SoTL): An Academic Literacies Perspective Part 2.” Teaching & Learning Inquiry 11.
https://doi.org/10.20343/teachlearninqu.11.5
Healey, M., Healey, R. L.

students to supporting students and academic and professional staff. This review should be of interest to
both experienced and new SoTL scholars.
Academic identity is a core feature of the academic literacy literature (e.g., Coleman and Morris
2021; Lea and Stierer 2009; 2011). The concept of identity helps to understand the different ways that
academics see the process of undertaking a literature review. Some view it in rather mechanical terms, a
process of rigorously following a carefully defined protocol. Only by adopting this method can bias be
minimised and reliable evidence be constructed to guide policy and practice (e.g., Gough, Oliver, and
Thomas 2013). Others argue, as we do, that reviewing the literature can never be an entirely “objective”
process, however systematic you attempt to be. Proponents of this view see contextually sensitive
judgements and interpretation of texts as central to the reviewing process and as a strength rather than a
weakness (Hammersley 2001; Maclure 2005). This is particularly important in the social sciences,
which SoTL studies draw on extensively, where it is common to acknowledge the subjectivity of the
researcher. The perspectives we hold influence our identities as academics and SoTL scholars.
Using an academic literacies perspective to inform our understanding of literature reviews
emphasises that meaning-making is nuanced and contextualised, related to our identities and values, and
constrained by academic hierarchies. Montuori (2005) suggests viewing the literature review as a
process of creative inquiry that:

challenges the (largely implicit) epistemological assumption that it is actually possible to present a
list of relevant authors and ideas without in some way leaving the reviewer’s imprint on that
project. It views the literature review as a construction and a creation that emerges out of the
dialogue between the reviewer and the field (375).

Similarly, Imel (2011) argues that:

A quality literature review should not just reflect or replicate previous research and writing on the
topic under review, but should lead to new productive work . . . and represent knowledge
construction on the part of the writer (146–47).

The process of undertaking a literature review is fundamentally an intellectual endeavour. Hart (2018)
describes this as developing a “research imagination”:

something that is part of the research apprenticeship. . . . The research imagination is about:
having a broad view on a topic; being open to ideas regardless of how or where they originated;
scrutinizing ideas, methods and arguments regardless of who proposed them; playing with
different ideas in order to see if links can be made; following ideas to see where they might lead;
and it is about being scholarly in your work (19–20).

Reviewing the literature is, consciously or unconsciously, a political process in deciding what you
keep in and leave out of scholarly conversations (Cook-Sather, personal communication, 2 March
2022). This argument reinforces the value of adopting an academic literacies perspective when
synthesising SoTL literature.

Healey, Mick, and Ruth L. Healey. 2023. “Reviewing the Literature on Scholarship of Teaching and Learning 4
(SoTL): An Academic Literacies Perspective Part 2.” Teaching & Learning Inquiry 11.
https://doi.org/10.20343/teachlearninqu.11.5
 REVIEWING THE LITERATURE ON SCHOLARSHIP OF TEACHING AND LEARNING (SOTL)

A FRAMEWORK FOR REVIEWING THE SOTL LITERATURE

According to the literature, any SoTL project should begin with a literature review as this will
develop your knowledge of the topic and relevant conceptual frameworks, help clarify your research
question(s), and enhance your project design and research methods. It will also help position your
research in the academic conversation; clarify the need for, and contribution of the project; identify the
findings from related research; and help you build on, rather than repeat, previous work (Dewar and
Bennett 2015; Minocha 2021; Rowland and Myatt 2014; Taylor Institute for Teaching and Learning
n.d.). However, these are not neutral processes, all are influenced by the social context in which you are
situated.
Figure 2 presents a simplified framework of the main literature review processes and provides a
structure for later discussion. The diagram should help you visualise the context and some of the stages
of undertaking different kinds of literature reviews. It may give the impression of an ordered linear
process, but the reality is much messier, especially with narrative reviews. It is essentially a circular
process that you may go round several times (see also Juntunen and Lehenkari 2021). As you become
more familiar with the topic, you may amend the research question, inclusion criteria, and the themes
you discuss.

NATURE OF LITERATURE REVIEWS

Literature reviews may be viewed as both a process, and a product or outcome. Whereas the
former refers to “the process during which scholars identify, analyze, assess, and synthesize earlier
research”; the latter implies “an overview, synthesis and a critical assessment of previous research” (Boell
and Cecez-Kecmanovic 2014, 258).
The outcome of a literature review may be embedded as part of a larger study, such as a research
article or dissertation, with a section often entitled “literature review,” or it can be freestanding as a
separately published piece (Healey, Matthews, and Cook-Sather 2020). The first is a review for
research, while the latter is a review of research (Maxwell 2006). A review for research “is largely
forward-looking, setting the scene and justification for the research you are presenting in the following
sections.” A review of literature “is largely backward-looking, summarising the key features of what we
know already about a topic” (Healey, R. L. and Healey, M. 2023). This article is a freestanding review in
which the literature on reviewing the literature is integrated throughout the piece.
Although there is an overlap between embedded and freestanding reviews, writing the two types
differ significantly in terms of what is involved, what is possible, and the skills and experience needed to
undertake them. Embedded literature reviews are the most common type of review. They provide the
evidence for the rationale and context for undertaking SoTL projects, and hence are undertaken by
those new to SoTL and experienced SoTL practitioners. Freestanding reviews provide thorough critical
syntheses of the existing literature and are mostly undertaken by experienced SoTL practitioners.
Whereas thoroughness is a key indicator of the quality of a freestanding review, relevance is “the most
essential characteristic” of the embedded literature review (Maxwell 2006, 28). Whatever kind of review
you undertake, we advise that you seek comments from critical friends (Healey, Matthews, and Cook-
Sather 2020; Figure 2).

Healey, Mick, and Ruth L. Healey. 2023. “Reviewing the Literature on Scholarship of Teaching and Learning 5
(SoTL): An Academic Literacies Perspective Part 2.” Teaching & Learning Inquiry 11.
https://doi.org/10.20343/teachlearninqu.11.5
Healey, M., Healey, R. L.

Figure 2. SoTL literature review framework

For details of the literature search process see Healey, M. and Healey, R. L. (2023) Figure 1.

Writing an embedded literature review

Embedded reviews published in journals are generally considerably shorter than freestanding
reviews. Many authors have a section entitled “literature review” in their SoTL research articles.
Commonly these amount to between 500 and 1,500 words. Given these space constraints, authors need
to be selective about the literature cited and the depth of coverage given to specific references.
Embedded reviews in SoTL reports and dissertations often include a literature review chapter, and are
often considerably longer than in journal articles. Some of these may resemble the freestanding reviews

Healey, Mick, and Ruth L. Healey. 2023. “Reviewing the Literature on Scholarship of Teaching and Learning 6
(SoTL): An Academic Literacies Perspective Part 2.” Teaching & Learning Inquiry 11.
https://doi.org/10.20343/teachlearninqu.11.5
 REVIEWING THE LITERATURE ON SCHOLARSHIP OF TEACHING AND LEARNING (SOTL)

discussed below in terms of approach, depth, and thoroughness, while still focussing on setting the scene
for the research reported on in later sections of the report or dissertation.
The great majority of embedded reviews share features with the narrative reviews discussed in the
next section, but in the case of journal articles, in a cut-down version. The resources and space needed
for systematic reviews are not justified in embedded reviews. Most embedded literature reviews include,
firstly, clarifying the aims of the review and the context of the SoTL project, followed by a search for key
references to illustrate your argument(s) (Healey, M. and Healey, R. L. 2023), and a critique and
synthesis of the key literature (Figure 2).
“The quality and success of scholarly work depends in large measure on the quality of the
literature review process” (Boell and Cecez-Kecmanovic 2014, 257). Yet many reviews resemble “thinly
disguised annotated bibliographies” (Hart 2018, 2) “along the lines of A said, B said” (Healey,
Matthews, and Cook-Sather 2020, 142). The literature review is “all about thinking – and writing. And
thinking and writing are not two distinct things” (Thomson 2018a).
MacMillan (2018) observes, from reading many SoTL studies, that:

It sometimes appears as though the literature review has been an afterthought, based on a cursory
search to find papers that support the claims of a given study without much deep analysis of the
quality of that prior work (25).

To overcome these problems, Wilson (2022) suggests that researchers should “ditch the term
literature review and turn their attention to the dynamic relationship between their own ideas and
existing work.” A sound review has a clear focus and a structure in which the relevant literature is
critiqued and synthesised by combining, explaining, interpreting, and evaluating findings and ideas from
the literature to back up your arguments (Figure 2).
Embedded literature reviews connect the “why” of the paper with the aim of the SoTL inquiry. It
has a direction, and does not just describe what the authors did and found (Matthews, personal
communication, 9 March 2022). Authors sometimes justify the need for their review as filling a gap in
the literature. This is a deficit view. It is better to justify the review based on its significance in addressing
a problem you or others have identified or in understanding an issue better. Many gaps are not
significant (Thomson 2019).
Macmillan (2018) concludes her chapter on the SoTL literature review with the statement:

A SoTL literature review that is useful to researchers, readers, and the discipline connects diverse
disciplines, past and present, theory and practice. It brings together individual points of light from
prior work into constellations that take on a meaning greater than the sum of their parts (30).

This can be quite challenging, particularly for scholars new to SoTL who are unfamiliar with the
literature. The guidance in the accompanying article on searching the literature may provide a helpful
place to start (Healey, M. and Healey, R. L. 2023). Seeking the advice of critical friends who are
experienced SoTL scholars may also be useful. If new-to-SoTL scholars lack the confidence to undertake
the kind of literature review needed for a research article, they may consider writing in different genres
that are less embedded in the literature, such as case studies, reflective essays, opinion pieces, or blogs,

Healey, Mick, and Ruth L. Healey. 2023. “Reviewing the Literature on Scholarship of Teaching and Learning 7
(SoTL): An Academic Literacies Perspective Part 2.” Teaching & Learning Inquiry 11.
https://doi.org/10.20343/teachlearninqu.11.5
Healey, M., Healey, R. L.

while they develop their familiarity with the SoTL literature (Healey, Matthews, and Cook-Sather
2020). There are many guides for graduate students undertaking the more extensive literature reviews
associated with masters and doctoral theses. Both Kamler and Thomson (2014) and Walter and Stouck
(2020) emphasise, in line with this article, the importance of developing a scholarly identity in writing
the literature review chapter. The latter also explicitly uses an academic literacies framework.

Writing a freestanding literature review

Most freestanding reviews are empirical and ask questions such as “what works?” or “what was the
impact?,” but there are also conceptual reviews that are concerned with different questions such as “how
was this teaching practice designed?” and “what was the thinking underlying the design of this practice?”
(Amundsen and Wilson 2012; Kennedy 2007). This section combines elements of both with a
conceptual framework, and a realistic, though critical, discussion of the choices involved in undertaking a
freestanding review of the literature.

Nature of narrative and systematic reviews

There are several different types of freestanding literature reviews (Paré et al. 2015; Tight 2021),
but two main types dominate the literature: a) narrative, traditional, or scholastic reviews; and b)
systematic or interventionist reviews (Hart 2018; Jesson, Matheson, and Lacey 2011; Juntunen and
Lehenkari 2021) (Figure 2).
Narrative reviews provide noncomprehensive syntheses of previously published information,
often designed to provide a map of a field of research (Green, Johnson, and Adams 2006; Sukhera
2022a). Although the name suggests that they tell a story based on themes identified through reading
the literature, this is not always the case. They are common in books and reports as well as journal
articles and theses. They are the most common form of review in the social sciences and humanities
(Juntunen and Lehenkari 2021). For example, a recent study from the humanities reviewed playful
approaches to learning (Jensen et al. 2021).
Systematic reviews are “a review of existing research using explicit, accountable rigorous research
methods” (Gough, Oliver, and Thomas 2017, 2). They follow a series of well-defined stages, beginning
with a clearly delimited (narrow) question or hypothesis. They attempt to identify all the literature
within the criteria the authors define for inclusion, and adopt explicit methods selected with a view to
minimise bias (Gough, Oliver, and Thomas 2013; see figure 2). A team of researchers are usually needed
to undertake a full systematic review; hence, they are mainly restricted to freestanding reviews. The
extensive resources required for systematic reviews are rarely justified for embedded reviews. The time
taken to conduct a systematic review may lead to pressure to restrict the number of references closely
read (Maclure 2005).
The majority of SoTL reviews fall into the narrative category, including ones we have contributed
to or written ourselves (e.g., Fanghanel et al. 2015; Healey, Flint and Harrington 2014; Healey and
Healey 2019; Healey, Lannin, et al. 2013; Healey, Matthews, and Cook-Sather 2020; Healey, Bass, et. al.
2013). They can provide “an assessment of a state of knowledge in a problem domain and identification
of weaknesses and needs for further research” (Boell and Cecez-Kecmanovic 2015, 163). Well told
narrative reviews can be engaging and enlightening. However, too often the authors do not say how they
searched the literature, focused on particular themes, or selected sources to illustrate them. This should
be transparent and part of the methodology (Sukhera 2022a).

Healey, Mick, and Ruth L. Healey. 2023. “Reviewing the Literature on Scholarship of Teaching and Learning 8
(SoTL): An Academic Literacies Perspective Part 2.” Teaching & Learning Inquiry 11.
https://doi.org/10.20343/teachlearninqu.11.5
 REVIEWING THE LITERATURE ON SCHOLARSHIP OF TEACHING AND LEARNING (SOTL)

Systematic reviews characterise literature reviews in medicine and health sciences, and it can be
difficult to find outlets for narrative reviews in these disciplines, which though broader in scope, have
been criticised for lacking synthesis and rigour (Byrne 2016). A recent systematic review of STEM
education scholarship examined 798 articles published in 36 journals between 2000 and 2018 (Li et al.
2020). With some exceptions, systematic reviews are less common in the SoTL field (e.g., Leijon et al.
2021; Mercer-Mapstone et al. 2017; Pleschová and McAlpine 2015; Reedy and Guerrero Farías 2019).
However, as the evidence-based movement expands within the social policy field, systematic reviews are
growing in popularity in educational research too (Gough and Thomas 2016).
Two recent systematic reviews of the SoTL field take diverse approaches. Whereas Booth and
Woollacott (2018) focused on the diversity of the nature of SoTL practices; Tight (2018b)
concentrated on literature that treated SoTL as an idea and/or a movement. It is not surprising that the
topics covered, and their conclusions, varied widely; but as Hart (1998) reminds us: “All reviews,
irrespective of the topic, are written from a particular perspective or standpoint of the reviewer” (25).
There are several variants on systematic reviews, including scoping and rapid review studies.
These adopt a structured, but less exhaustive approach to systematic reviews. Scoping studies tend to
deal with broader topics in an exploratory way before possibly following up with more detailed
systematic reviews (Munn et al. 2018). A recent example of a scoping review in SoTL studied students
as partners in assessment (Ní Bheoláin, Lowney, and O’Riordan 2020). Their main advantage over full
systematic reviews is that they are quicker to undertake. One of the purposes of scoping reviews is to set
the scene for a future research agenda (Jesson, Matheson, and Lacey 2011). This is well illustrated by the
scoping review protocol for SoTL developed by Chick, Nowell, and Lenart (2019).

Strengths and weaknesses of narrative and systematic reviews

The advantages and disadvantages of narrative and systematic reviews have stimulated heated
debates between the two camps, leading to bold assertions on each side. Proponents of systematic
reviews see them as being “objective,” whereas narrative reviews are “subjective” (Cooper 1998).
Halpern (2013), in the preface to the EPPI (Evidence for Policy and Practice Information Coordinating
Centre) Guide to Systematic Reviews for Informing Policy Decisions, states that:

It now seems extraordinary that only a few decades ago it was acceptable practice to review
research by ad hoc literature reviews or panels of experts. Summaries of research were not done in
a systematic way and all sorts of biases crept in: reviewers did not attempt to identify all the
relevant research, check that it was reliable, or write up their results in an accountable manner. But
over the last forty years, we have a more rigorous systematic approach [that] has been refined to
review what is known and not known . . . (4).

Underpinning these views is the argument that narrative reviews are unsystematic and “include only
research selected by the authors, which introduces bias and, therefore, frequently lags behind and
contradicts the available evidence” (Jahan et al. 2016, 1).
In contrast, Boell and Cecez-Kecmanovic (2015, 161) question claims that systematic reviews
provide “a ‘standardized method’ for literature reviews that is replicable, transparent, objective, unbiased
and rigorous, and thus superior to other approaches for conducting literature reviews.” A decade earlier

Healey, Mick, and Ruth L. Healey. 2023. “Reviewing the Literature on Scholarship of Teaching and Learning 9
(SoTL): An Academic Literacies Perspective Part 2.” Teaching & Learning Inquiry 11.
https://doi.org/10.20343/teachlearninqu.11.5
Healey, M., Healey, R. L.

Maclure (2005), based on a close reading of 30 systematic education reviews undertaken by the EPPI
Centre at the University of London, argued that the approach:

degrades the status of reading and writing as scholarly activities, tends to result in reviews with
limited capacity to inform policy or practice, and constitutes a threat to quality and critique in
scholarship and research. The claims that are made for the transparency, accountability and
trustworthiness of systematic review do not therefore, it is argued, stand up to scrutiny (393).

For more detail of Maclure’s critique, please see her article. She argues that these systematic reviews
suffer from the assumption that:

evidence can be extracted intact from the texts in which it is embedded, and “synthesized” in a
form that is impervious to ambiguities of context, readers’ interpretations or writers’ arguments
(i.e., bias). Most significantly of all, systematic review systematically degrades the central acts of
reviewing: namely, reading and writing, and the unreliable intellectual acts that these support,
such as interpretation, argument and analysis. By replacing reading and writing with an alternate
lexicon of scanning, screening, mapping, data-extraction and synthesis, systematic review tries to
transform reading and writing into accountable acts (394).

Most systematic reviews focus on empirical, evidence-based practice, and prioritise quantitative
studies, particularly those using randomised controlled trials, and exclude many of the qualitative studies
that may feature in narrative reviews and are common in SoTL studies. Although qualitative studies are
included in some systematic reviews (Mercer-Mapstone et al. 2017), it is questionable in many SoTL
areas, whether there are yet sufficient quantitative studies undertaken to justify systematic reviews that
attempt to measure the impact of educational initiatives on student outcomes.
Even where there are sufficient studies to review, systematic reviews may not be the most
appropriate approach. They may appear to be more rigorous than narrative reviews, but their narrower
focus can restrict the range of sources used, the topics addressed, the methods seen as acceptable, and
limit the imagination and creativity of the authors (Hart 2018; Kennedy 2007; Montuori 2005).
Systematic reviews are often claimed to be unbiased (Jesson, Matheson, and Lacey 2011). Moreover,
the PRISMA Statement for Reporting Literature Searches in Systematic Reviews recommends that
searches include selective sources, such as conference proceedings and general browsing (Rethlefsen et
al. 2021, item 4). However, most systematic reviews are limited to published, peer reviewed, academic
journal articles found in specified electronic databases that characterise literature searches using
comprehensive tools and ignore the biases in the selection of journals in the databases index, and in the
references that authors choose to cite. These reservations are well summarised by Boell and Cecez-
Kecmanovic (2015). They argue that when systematic review guidelines are “adopted for general
literature review they endorse an impoverished notion of literature review by degrading them to
repeatable literature searches and selection processes” (170). They point out that whereas systematic
reviews stress the process of literature identification and selection, narrative reviews emphasise how
reading enables academics to enhance their understanding of the subject area and hence improve their
searches.

Healey, Mick, and Ruth L. Healey. 2023. “Reviewing the Literature on Scholarship of Teaching and Learning 10
(SoTL): An Academic Literacies Perspective Part 2.” Teaching & Learning Inquiry 11.
https://doi.org/10.20343/teachlearninqu.11.5
 REVIEWING THE LITERATURE ON SCHOLARSHIP OF TEACHING AND LEARNING (SOTL)

It is important to remember that: “It is possible to work systematically in your literature review,
but that does not mean it is a systematic review” (Jesson, Matheson, and Lacey 2011, 9). There are also
some useful guides on making narrative reviews more systematic (Booth, Sutton, and Papaioannou
2016; Sukhera 2022b). Ferrari (2015) suggests that narrative reviews may be enhanced “by borrowing
from systematic review methodologies that are aimed at reducing bias in the selection of articles for
review and employing an effective bibliographic research strategy” (230). Indeed, we see the current
article, together with the accompanying article on searching the literature (Healey, M. and Healey, R. L.
2023), as providing a systematic narrative review of searching and reviewing the SoTL literature in
which we are explicit about our aims, literature sources, inclusion and exclusion criteria, and outcomes.

Narrative and systematic reviews: Competing or complementary?

Despite the often-heated debates about the pros and cons of narrative and systematic reviews,
they are essentially complementary rather than competing approaches.

Conventional systematic reviews address narrowly focused questions; their key contribution is
summarising data. Narrative reviews provide interpretation and critique; their key contribution is
deepening understanding (Greenhalgh, Thorne, and Malterud 2018, 2).

High-quality versions of both are needed for a full understanding of the development and contribution
of SoTL. Indeed, Hart (2018, 118) suggests that systematic (interventionist) reviews should be
preceded by narrative (scholastic) reviews, so that the researchers have a clear understanding of the
topic and its associated concepts to contextualise the narrower in-depth analysis associated with a
systematic review.
Reviews using a systematic methodology have a valuable contribution to make to answering
specific questions, such as “what works?,” or “how is one variable related to another?,” and testing tightly
defined hypotheses (Boell and Cecez-Kecmanovic 2015), but they need to recognise the limitations of
the databases that most of them rely upon. Narrative reviews are best at answering broader overview
questions, such as “what is the state of our knowledge?,” “what is happening in this context?,” or “what
are the strengths and weaknesses?,” but they need to be undertaken rigorously and transparently. There
is no single best way to undertake a literature review.

Planning your freestanding literature review

Selection is critical in writing a review. “A review is not exhaustive; it is situated, partial,
perspectival” (Lather 1999, 3). A key stage in the review process is the selection of which literature, from
the sometimes several hundreds or thousands of items found in the literature search, to focus on in the
review. This is where the clarity of the review’s aim and the inclusion and exclusion criteria, if used, play
a critical role. These may need to be revisited to give a practical number of items, depending on the time
and resources available, emphasising again the sometimes disordered nature of the literature review
processes.
In a systematic review the reduction procedure should be transparent. For example, in a review of
Enhancing Access, Retention, Attainment and Progression in Higher Education, the reviewers identified over
10,000 initial hits, which they reduced in three stages to just over 400 items (4%) (Webb, Wyness, and

Healey, Mick, and Ruth L. Healey. 2023. “Reviewing the Literature on Scholarship of Teaching and Learning 11
(SoTL): An Academic Literacies Perspective Part 2.” Teaching & Learning Inquiry 11.
https://doi.org/10.20343/teachlearninqu.11.5
Healey, M., Healey, R. L.

Cotton 2017). It is less common in narrative reviews to be as specific about the numbers of items
identified, or the number of items included or excluded. More qualitative justifications are given as to
how they choose examples to illustrate a wider range of literature. This approach puts a premium on the
expertise of the reviewer to make a choice, based on the depth of their reading, about which literature
best illustrates the aims, themes, and arguments in their review, rather than emphasising the objective,
repeatable methodology, associated with systematic reviews.
There are several stages involved in undertaking a freestanding literature review. A summary of
some of the stages involved in undertaking freestanding SoTL literature reviews are presented in Figure
2. For systematic reviews, there are well developed protocols (e.g., Gough, Oliver, and Thomas 2013).
They start by defining the research question or hypothesis, then undertake an exhaustive literature
search and apply the inclusion and exclusion criteria to check which studies are relevant and which
should be discarded. They then code and map the nature of the research field, and critically appraise the
relevance and quality of the studies, before synthesising the evidence regarding the research question.
Stages have also been identified to guide narrative reviews (e.g., Green, Johnson, and Adams 2006;
Sukhera 2022b; Torraco 2016). However, there is a greater variety of approaches to undertaking
narrative reviews, reflecting the importance of context and imagination and the flexible and iterative
nature of the process (Hart 2018; Juntunen and Lehenkari 2021). One possible set of stages is illustrated
in Figure 2. It begins by clarifying the aims of the review, defining key terms and concepts, and
identifying the initial themes for the review. A search for references related to these themes is then
undertaken, and the inclusion and exclusion criteria, if specified, are applied. This is followed by a critical
evaluation and synthesis of the relevant literature, leading to a reflection on the initial themes and
selection of key examples to illustrate them. The process of reflection often leads to a clarification and
development of the initial themes, the addition of extra themes, and a further iteration of the above
stages. It is essentially a circular process that you may go round several times (Healey, M. and Healey, R.
L. 2023); again, emphasising the socially constructed nature of the process. A set of common questions
that may help guide the SoTL scholar undertaking a narrative review are presented in Table 3.

Table 3. Guiding questions for planning, revising, and refining a narrative literature review
1. What is the focus and aim of your review? Who is your audience?
2. Why is there a need for your review? Why is it significant?
3. What is the context of the topic or issue? What perspective do you take? What framework do
you use to synthesise the literature?
4. How did you locate and select sources for inclusion in the review?
5. How is your review structured?
6. What are the main findings in the literature on this topic?
7. What are the main strengths and limitations of this literature?
8. What conclusions do you draw from the review? What do you argue needs to be done as an
outcome of the review?
Source: Based on: Healey, Matthews, and Cook-Sather (2020, 148–51)

IMPLICATIONS FOR THE FURTHER DEVELOPMENT OF AN ACADEMIC LITERACIES PERSPECTIVE

Many of the guides on searching and reviewing literature, and the accounts authors give in their
publications about how they went about these processes, give the impression that they are objective and

Healey, Mick, and Ruth L. Healey. 2023. “Reviewing the Literature on Scholarship of Teaching and Learning 12
(SoTL): An Academic Literacies Perspective Part 2.” Teaching & Learning Inquiry 11.
https://doi.org/10.20343/teachlearninqu.11.5
 REVIEWING THE LITERATURE ON SCHOLARSHIP OF TEACHING AND LEARNING (SOTL)

scientific processes. As Hart (2018) notes: “the serendipitous, often chaotic, fragmented and contingent
nature of most research . . . is not described in the formal account” (3). Similarly, Montuori (2005)
states that: “The traditional elimination of the inquirer from the process of inquiry in favor of objectivity,
laws, and rationality has led to a somewhat sanitized view of science and inquiry” (387).
To extend the academic literacies perspective further, there is a need to investigate how SoTL
scholars go about searching and reviewing the literature. It would be revealing to study the lived
experiences of SoTL researchers, how these vary between novice and experienced students and faculty,
how their understandings contrast with those they have in their home disciplines, and how they are
affected by their identities and contexts. A similar suggestion, to ask SoTL authors about their reading,
writing, and citation strategies, was made by Cappello and Miller-Young (2020). Coleman and Morris
(2021) provide a fascinating account of how they, as two South African academics, understood and
discursively constructed their identities through writing about SoTL using an academic literacies
framework; while Thomson (2018b) gives a brief account of her experience of undertaking a rapid
evidence review. Some fascinating quotes about the messy, iterative, and cumulative process that
bachelor students experienced in undertaking business research theses, may be found in the article by
Juntunen and Lehenkari (2021). Our story about preparing and writing this article, and the one on
searching the SoTL literature (Healey, M. and Healey, R. L. 2023), is told in Box 2.

Box 2. The story of the origins, literature searches, and writing of this review
We think it important to begin by acknowledging our own identities, as these influenced how we
searched, selected, and interpreted the literature as constructive and creative processes. We are two
related (father and daughter), white, British academics. Our geography training means that we value
interdisciplinary approaches. We have extensive previous experience of undertaking SoTL projects and
narrative literature reviews, and have written about the processes of undertaking literature searches and
reviews. We have searched the literature widely, but not exhaustively, in preparing these articles. Given
our lack of linguistic abilities, we have restricted our search to English-language publications.
At first the paper was conceived largely as a “how to” article, albeit recognising the importance of
context, and that there is no one right way of searching for literature or reviewing it. However, as we
started planning the article, we realised that we could use ideas from the literature on academic literacies
as a framework and push the boundaries of what counts as valid forms of academic literacy. As we
continued to search and read the relevant literature, we found several other references that discussed the
social construction of knowledge in terms of literature search and review, a theme emphasised in the
literature on academic literacies, though most of the pieces we found did not link explicitly to academic
literacy.
We kept notes on the complexity and messiness of our literature search and review processes. We
found that our SoTL literature search and review processes were closely related and continued
throughout the three months we were preparing the article for submission, as our understanding
developed, and we integrated ideas from the general literature on search and review with the SoTL
specific literature. Following comments from the reviewers that we were attempting to do too much in a
single article, we agreed with the editors of Teaching & Learning Inquiry, to resubmit two stand-alone but
related articles, one on searching the SoTL literature and the other on reviewing the SoTL literature.

Healey, Mick, and Ruth L. Healey. 2023. “Reviewing the Literature on Scholarship of Teaching and Learning 13
(SoTL): An Academic Literacies Perspective Part 2.” Teaching & Learning Inquiry 11.
https://doi.org/10.20343/teachlearninqu.11.5
Healey, M., Healey, R. L.

Our previous experience of SoTL, and undertaking literature searches and narrative reviews, is
reflected in the combined reference list of the two articles, where we had prior knowledge of 31% of the
127 items. However, we extended our knowledge and understanding significantly as we uncovered other
references on the lack of objectivity in searching and reviewing the literature, pursued ideas about
academic and SoTL identities, and explored the importance of contexts, countries, and cultures in
influencing what we searched for and reviewed, and how we went about these key academic processes.
Selective literature sources were interwoven with those we found by using comprehensive tools. The
former were more important sources, accounting for 46% of our references, as we followed up citations,
browsed journals, searched grey literature, used our networks, followed social media links, and benefited
from several serendipitous finds. Comprehensive tools accounted for only 23% of the references we cite.
A specific example of serendipity occurred towards the end of drafting this article when we saw a
call from Advance HE (UK) to tender for a literature review on student engagement through
partnership focusing on demonstrable impacts on student outcomes. As we explored previous literature
reviews undertaken for Advance HE with this focus, all of which adopted a systematic review
methodology, we came across several other relevant references that informed our understanding of
topics covered in this review. As it was, we decided not to put in a tender, in part because the focus of the
proposed review, on quantifiable impacts, severely limited the literature that we were interested in
exploring.
Unlike some researchers, who note that they undertook their literature search on a particular date,
we kept returning to the databases, search engines, reference lists, and other sources, as our ideas
evolved, and we received feedback from critical friends and reviewers. The key words we used for
searching the literature were not restricted to SoTL literature search and review; as we also explored
literature on academic literacies, academic identities, academic writing, discipline-based educational
research, citation practices, and bias in database searches, as well as general references on searching and
reviewing academic literature. Our writing and our literature search were integrally linked as we clarified
our thinking and kept revisiting our search, illustrating again the continuous and messy nature of many
literature searches and reviews.
A common theme from the comments we received from several of our critical friends was the
need to enhance the links between the sections about following an academic literacies perspective with
those on how to undertake a literature search and review sections of the paper. We responded by
clarifying the different ways that the search and review processes could be undertaken and how they
varied based on the purpose. We elaborated on the social and political nature of literature search and
review, and how they are influenced by the values and identities of scholars, and the academic
hierarchies in which they operate, including expanding on the limitations of systematic reviews.
We also explored further the desirability of including a more diverse set of voices (Healey, M. and
Healey, R. L. 2023). Following the recommendation of Mott and Cockayne (2017) to practise
“conscientious engagement” in selecting references to cite, to give greater weight to under-represented
voices, we undertook a citation count of the literature we cited in the first draft of the paper, to identify
the country in which the 175 authors were based. From the institution to which the authors were
affiliated, 82% were based in the UK (33%), US (27%), Australia (11%), and Canada (10%), the four
most represented countries in the SoTL literature, and 18% were based in nine other countries. We were
already aware of the desirability to diversify the background of the voices we cited and had moved in this
direction, but this exercise focussed our minds, and we added or substituted a few further articles written
Healey, Mick, and Ruth L. Healey. 2023. “Reviewing the Literature on Scholarship of Teaching and Learning 14
(SoTL): An Academic Literacies Perspective Part 2.” Teaching & Learning Inquiry 11.
https://doi.org/10.20343/teachlearninqu.11.5
 REVIEWING THE LITERATURE ON SCHOLARSHIP OF TEACHING AND LEARNING (SOTL)

from authors based beyond these four countries, where they made similar arguments or illustrated
similar practices. We also added some relevant references written or co-written by Indigenous authors.
The final two papers, including taking on board comments from critical friends and reviewers, cite 274
authors from 17 different countries.

CONCLUSION
Our intention in writing this article was to build on our complementary article on searching the
SoTL literature (Healey, M. and Healey, R. L. 2023) by applying the same academic literacies
framework, but this time to the process of reviewing the SoTL literature. Our argument in both papers is
that searching and reviewing the literature is a socially constructed process. We wanted to provide a
readable and practical, but critical guide to the process of synthesising the literature that clarifies some of
the confusions and unjustified claims in the review literature. We distinguished between reviews that are
embedded in wider SoTL projects, and reviews that are freestanding critiques of bodies of literature. We
went on to discuss the nature and strengths and weaknesses of narrative and systematic freestanding
reviews and challenge the view that systematic reviews are necessarily superior to narrative reviews by
being more objective. Though critical of systematic reviews, we recognise that for the most part,
narrative and systematic reviews have different purposes, and both are needed to obtain a full
understanding of the SoTL literature. We contend that narrative reviews are likely to continue to
dominate the SoTL literature, especially while most SoTL studies use qualitative or mixed methods. It is
important that contextually-sensitive judgements and interpretation of texts, associated with narrative
reviews, are seen as central to the reviewing process, and as a strength rather than a weakness. However,
we feel that many narrative reviews could be strengthened by being undertaken more systematically. To
develop the academic literacies perspective on searching and reviewing the literature, we call for more
studies that examine the rich and varied lived experiences of SoTL scholars and how they go about
searching and reviewing the literature.
It is important to begin a SoTL project with a literature search and review, but also to keep
returning to it. As Daniel and Harland (2018, 96) argue: “A literature review should be done first and
last and at every stage in between.”

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We are very grateful to Nancy Chick, Alison Cook-Sather, Debby Cotton, Margy MacMillan,
Kelly Matthews, Sophie Nicholls, and Saranne Weller, who provided many helpful, and insightful
comments on an earlier draft of this article. We are also greatly indebted to three anonymous reviewers
for their suggestions to clarify the text.

AUTHOR BIOGRAPHIES
Mick Healey is director of Healey HE Consultants and emeritus professor at University of Gloucestershire (UK).

Ruth L. Healey is professor of teaching and learning in higher education at University of Chester (UK) and director of Healey HE
Consultants.

Healey, Mick, and Ruth L. Healey. 2023. “Reviewing the Literature on Scholarship of Teaching and Learning 15
(SoTL): An Academic Literacies Perspective Part 2.” Teaching & Learning Inquiry 11.
https://doi.org/10.20343/teachlearninqu.11.5
Healey, M., Healey, R. L.

REFERENCES
Amundsen, Cheryl, and Wilson, Mary. 2012. “Are We Asking the Right Questions?: A Conceptual Review of the
Educational Development Literature in Higher Education.” Review of Educational Research 82 (1): 90–126.
https://doi.org/10.3102%2F0034654312438409.
Bell, Judith, and Stephen Waters. 2018. Doing Your Research Project: A Guide for First-Time Researchers in Education
and Social Science. 7th Edition. Maidenhead: Open University Press.
Boell, Sebastian K., and Dubravka Cecez-Kecmanovic. 2014. “A Hermeneutic Approach for Conducting Literature
Reviews and Literature Searches.” Communications of the Association for Information Systems 34: 257–86.
https://doi.org/10.17705/1CAIS.03412.
Boell, Sebastian K., and Dubravka Cecez-Kecmanovic. 2015. “On Being ‘Systematic’ in Literature Reviews in IS.”
Journal of Information Technology 30 (2): 161–73. http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/jit.2014.26.
Booth, Andrew, Anthea Sutton, and Diana Papaioannou. 2016. Systematic Approaches to a Successful Literature
Review. 2nd Edition. London: Sage. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Andrew-Booth-
2/publication/235930866_Systematic_Approaches_to_a_Successful_Literature_Review/links/5da06c7f4585
1553ff8705fa/Systematic-Approaches-to-a-Successful-Literature-Review.pdf?origin=publication_detail.
Booth, Shirley, and Lorenzo C. Woollacott. 2018. “On the Constitution of SoTL: Its Domains and Contexts.” Higher
Education 75 (3): 537–51. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-017-0156-7.
Byrne, Jennifer A. 2016. “Improving the Peer Review of Narrative Literature Reviews.” Research Integrity and Peer
Review 1 (12): 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-016-0019-2.
Cappello, Alicia, and Janice Miller-Young. 2020. “Who Are We Citing and How? A SoTL Citation Analysis.”
Teaching & Learning Inquiry 8 (2). http://dx.doi.org/10.20343/teachlearninqu.8.2.2.
Case, Jennifer M. 2015. “Knowledge for Teaching, Knowledge about Teaching: Exploring the Links Between
Educational Research, Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL) and Scholarly Teaching.” Journal of
Education 61: 53–72. http://joe.ukzn.ac.za/Libraries/No_61_2015/Joe_61_case.sflb.ashx.
Chick, Nancy L. 2016. The SoTL Lit Review, The SoTL Librarian. Last modified January 24, 2016.
https://nancychick.wordpress.com/2016/01/24/the-sotl-lit-review-the-sotl-librarian/.
Chick, Nancy L., La Vonne Cornell-Swanson, Katina Lazarides, and Renee Meyers. 2014. “Reconciling Apples &
Oranges: A Constructivist SoTL Writing Program.” International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and
Learning 8 (2): Article 13. http://digitalcommons.georgiasouthern.edu/ij-sotl/vol8/iss2/.
Chick, Nancy, Lorelli Nowell, and Bartlomiej Lenart. 2019. “The Scholarship of Teaching and Learning: A Scoping
Review Protocol.” Teaching and Learning Inquiry 7 (2): 186–97.
https://doi.org/10.20343/teachlearninqu.7.2.12.
Coleman, Lynne, and Amanda Morris. 2021. ‘“You Become Academic Royalty Once You’ve Published’: A Social
Practice Exploration of Identity in Academic Writing.” Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in the South 5 (2):
4–21. https://doi.org/10.36615/sotls.v5i2.192.
Cooper, Harris. 1998. Synthesizing Research: A Guide for Literature Reviews. 3rd Edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Daniel, Ben Kei, and Tony Harland. 2018. Higher Education Research Methodology: A Step-by-Step Guide to the
Research Process. Abingdon: Routledge.
Dewar, Jacqueline M., and Curtis D. Bennett. 2015. “Initiating a SoTL Investigation.” In Doing the Scholarship of
Teaching and Learning in Mathematics, edited by Jacqueline M. Dewar, and Curtis D. Bennett, 13–18.
Washington: Mathematical Association of America.
Fanghanel, Joëlle, Suzannah McGowan, Pam Parker, Catherine McConnell, Jacqueline Potter, William Locke, and
Mick Healey. 2015. Literature Review. Defining and Supporting the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL):
A Sector-Wide Study. York: HE Academy.
https://www.academia.edu/19942913/Defining_and_Supporting_the_Scholarship_of_Teaching_and_Learn
ing_A_literature_review.
Ferrari, Rossella. 2015. “Writing Narrative Style Literature Reviews.” Medical Writing 24 (4): 230–35.
https://doi.org/10.1179/2047480615Z.000000000329.
Fink, Arlene. 2020. Conducting Research Literature Reviews: From the Internet to Paper. 5th Edition. London: Sage.
Fister, Barbara. 2015. “The Social Life of Knowledge: Faculty Epistemologies.” In Not Just Where to Click: Teaching
Students to Think About Information, edited by Troy A. Swanson, and Heather Jagman, 87–104. Chicago:
Association of College and Research Libraries. https://barbarafister.net/SocialLife.pdf.

Healey, Mick, and Ruth L. Healey. 2023. “Reviewing the Literature on Scholarship of Teaching and Learning 16
(SoTL): An Academic Literacies Perspective Part 2.” Teaching & Learning Inquiry 11.
https://doi.org/10.20343/teachlearninqu.11.5
 REVIEWING THE LITERATURE ON SCHOLARSHIP OF TEACHING AND LEARNING (SOTL)

Geertsema, Johan. 2016. “Academic Development, SoTL and Educational Research.” International Journal for
Academic Development 21 (2): 122–34. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360144X.2016.1175144.
Gough, David, Sandy Oliver, and James Thomas. 2013. Learning from Research: Systematic Reviews for Informing
Policy Decisions: A Quick Guide. London: The Alliance for Useful Evidence.
https://patthomson.files.wordpress.com/2018/05/alliance-fue-reviews-booklet-3.pdf.
Gough, David, Sandy Oliver, and James Thomas. 2017. “Introducing Systematic Reviews.” In An Introduction to
Systematic Reviews, edited by David Gough, Sandy Oliver, and James Thomas, 1–17. London: Sage.
Gough, David, and James Thomas. 2016. “Systematic Reviews of Research in Education: Aims, Myths and Multiple
Methods.” Review of Education 4 (1): 103–05. https://doi.org/10.1002/rev3.3068.
Green, Bart N., Claire D. Johnson, and Alan Adams. 2006. “Writing Narrative Literature Reviews for Peer-Reviewed
Journals: Secrets of the Trade.” Journal of Chiropractic Medicine 5 (3): 101–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0899-
3467(07)60142-6.
Greenhalgh Trisha, Sally Thorne, and Kirsty Malterud. 2018. “Time to Challenge the Spurious Hierarchy of
Systematic over Narrative Reviews?” European Journal of Clinical Investigation 48 (6): e12931.
https://doi.org/10.1111/eci.12931.
Halpern, David. 2013. “Preface.” In Learning from Research: Systematic Reviews for Informing Policy Decisions: A
Quick Guide. By David Gough, Sandy Oliver, and James Thomas, 4. London: The Alliance for Useful Evidence.
https://patthomson.files.wordpress.com/2018/05/alliance-fue-reviews-booklet-3.pdf.
Hammersley, Martyn. 2001. “On ‘Systematic’ Reviews of Research Literatures: A ‘Narrative’ Response to Evans &
Benefield.” British Educational Research Journal 27 (5): 543–54. https://doi.org/10.1080/01411920120095726.
Hart, Chris. 1998/2018. Doing a Literature Review: Releasing the Research Imagination. 1st/2nd Edition. London:
SAGE.
Healey, Mick, Abbi Flint, and Katherine Harrington. 2014. Engagement Through Partnership: Students as Partners in
Learning and Teaching in Higher Education. York: HE Academy. https://www.advance-he.ac.uk/knowledge-
hub/engagement-through-partnership-students-partners-learning-and-teaching-higher.
Healey, Mick, and Ruth L. Healey. 2019. Student Engagement Through Partnership: A Guide and Update to Advance
HE Framework (04). York: Advance HE. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-ia0s5_CDQQeIHkZUrNGtp7g-
BT_UEi3/view?usp=sharing.
Healey, Mick, and Ruth L. Healey. 2023. “Searching the Literature on Scholarship of Teaching and Learning
(SoTL): An Academic Literacies Perspective Part 1.” Teaching & Learning Inquiry 11.
Healey, Mick, Laura Lannin, Arran Stibbe, and James Derounian. 2013. Developing and Enhancing Undergraduate
Final Year Projects and Dissertations. York: HE Academy. https://www.advance-he.ac.uk/knowledge-
hub/developing-and-enhancing-undergraduate-final-year-projects-and-dissertations.
Healey, Mick, Kelly E. Matthews, and Alison Cook-Sather. 2019. “Writing Scholarship of Teaching and Learning
Articles for Peer-reviewed Journals.” Teaching & Learning Inquiry 7 (2): 28–50.
https://doi.org/10.20343/teachlearninqu.7.2.3.
Healey, Mick, Kelly E. Matthews, and Alison Cook-Sather. 2020. Writing about Learning and Teaching in Higher
Education: Creating and Contributing to Scholarly Conversations across a Range of Genres. Elon: Center for
Engaged Learning Open-Access Books. https://www.centerforengagedlearning.org/books/writing-about-
learning/.
Healey, Ruth L., Tina Bass, Jay Caulfield, Adam Hoffman, Michelle K. McGinn, Janice Miller-Young, and Martin
Haigh. 2013. “Being Ethically Minded: Practising the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in an Ethical
Manner.” Teaching & Learning Inquiry 1 (2): 23–33. https://doi.org/10.20343/teachlearninqu.1.2.23.
Healey, Ruth L., and Mick Healey. 2023. “Identifying and Reviewing the Key Literature for your Assignment.” In
Key Methods in Geography, 4th Edition, edited by Nicholas J. Clifford, Meghan Cope, and Thomas Gillespie.
London: SAGE.
Imel, Susan. 2011. “Writing a Literature Review.” In The Handbook of Scholarly Writing and Publishing, edited by
Tonette S. Rocco and Timothy Gary Hatcher, 145–60. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Jahan, Nusrat, Sasiq Naveed, Muhammad Zeshan, and Muhammad A. Tahir. 2016. “How to Conduct a Systematic
Review: A Narrative Literature Review.” Cureus 8 (11): 1–8. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.864.
Jensen, Julie Borup, Oline Pedersen, Ole Lund, and Helle Marie Skovbjerg. 2021. “Playful Approaches to Learning
as a Realm for the Humanities in the Culture of Higher Education: A Hermeneutical Literature Review.” Arts
and Humanities in Higher Education 21 (2): 198–219. https://doi.org/10.1177/14740222211050862.

Healey, Mick, and Ruth L. Healey. 2023. “Reviewing the Literature on Scholarship of Teaching and Learning 17
(SoTL): An Academic Literacies Perspective Part 2.” Teaching & Learning Inquiry 11.
https://doi.org/10.20343/teachlearninqu.11.5
Healey, M., Healey, R. L.

Jesson, Jill, Lydia Matheson, and Fiona M. Lacey. 2011. Doing Your Literature Review: Traditional and Systematic
Techniques. London: Sage.
Juntunen, Mari, and Mirjam Lehenkari. 2021. “A Narrative Literature Review Process for an Academic Business
Research Thesis.” Studies in Higher Education 46 (2): 330–42.
https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2019.1630813.
Kamler, Barbara, and Pat Thomson. 2014. Helping Doctoral Students Write: Pedagogies for Supervision. 2nd edition.
London: Routledge.
Kennedy, Mary M. 2007. “Defining a Literature.” Educational Researcher 36 (3): 139–47.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X07299197.
Lather, Patti. 1999. “To Be of Use: The Work of Reviewing.” Review of Educational Research 69 (1): 2–7.
https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543069001002.
Larsson, Maria, Katarina Mårtensson, Linda Price, and Torgny Roxå. 2017. “Constructive Friction? Exploring
Patterns between Educational Research and the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning.” The 2nd EuroSoTL
Conference, June 8–9, 2017, Lund, Sweden. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/316860423.
Lea, Mary R. 2017. “Academic Literacies in Theory and Practice.” In Literacies and Language Education.
Encyclopaedia of Language and Education, edited by Barry V. Street, and Stephen May, 127–58. 3rd Edition.
Cham: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-02252-9_19.
Lea, Mary R., and Barry Stierer. 2009. “Lecturers’ Everyday Writing as Professional Practice in the University as
Workplace: New Insights into Academic Identities.” Studies in Higher Education 34 (4): 417–28.
https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070902771952.
Lea, Mary R., and Barry Stierer. 2011. “Changing Academic Identities in Changing Academic Workplaces: Learning
from Academics’ Everyday Professional Writing Practices.” Teaching in Higher Education 16 (6): 605–16.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2011.560380.
Leijon, Marie, Petri Gudmundsson, Patricia Staaf, and Cecilia Christersson. 2021. “Challenge Based Learning in
Higher Education: A Systematic Literature Review.” Innovations in Education and Teaching International 59 (5):
609–618. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2021.1892503.
Li, Yepping, Ke Wang, Yu Xao, and Jeffrey E. Froyd. 2020. “Research and Trends in STEM Education: A Systematic
Review of Journal Publications.” International Journal of STEM Education 7: Article 11.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-020-00207-6.
MacLure, Maggie. 2005. “‘Clarity Bordering on Stupidity’: Where’s the Quality in Systematic Review?” Journal of
Education Policy 20 (4): 393–416. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680930500131801.
MacMillan, Margy. 2018. “The SoTL Literature: Exploring New Territories.” In SoTL in Action: Illuminating Critical
Moments of Practice, edited by Nancy L. Chick, 23–31. Sterling, Virginia: Stylus.
Maxwell, Joseph A. 2006. “Literature Reviews of, and for, Educational Research: A Commentary on Boote and
Beile’s ‘Scholars Before Researchers.’” Educational Researcher 35 (9): 28–31.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X035009028.
Mercer-Mapstone, Lucy, Sam Lucie Dvorakova, Kelly E. Matthews, Sophia Abbot, Breagh Cheng, Peter Felten, Kris
Knorr, Elizabeth Marquis, Rafaella Shammas, and Kelly Swaim. 2017. “A Systematic Literature Review of
Students as Partners in Higher Education.” International Journal for Students as Partners 1 (1).
https://doi.org/10.15173/ijsap.v1i1.3119.
Miller-Young, Janice, and Michelle Yeo. 2015. “Conceptualizing and Communicating SoTL: A Framework for the
Field.” Teaching & Learning Inquiry 3 (2): 37–53. https://doi.org/10.20343/teachlearninqu.3.2.37.
Minocha, Shailey. 2021. “Literature Review for SoTL Inquiry.” In Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in STEM,
Milton Keynes. Open University.
https://www.open.edu/openlearn/ocw/mod/oucontent/view.php?id=109157&section=5.
Montuori, Alphonso. 2005. “Literature Review as Creative Inquiry: Reframing Scholarship as a Creative Process.”
Journal of Transformative Education 3 (4): 374–93. https://doi.org/10.1177/1541344605279381.
Mott, Carrie, and Daniel Cockayne. 2017. “Citation Matters: Mobilizing the Politics of Citation toward a Practice of
‘Conscientious Engagement.’” Gender, Place & Culture 24 (7): 954–73.
Munn, Zachary, Micah D. J. Peters, Cindy Stern, Catalin Tufanaru, Alexa McArthur, and Edoardo Aromataris. 2018.
“Systematic Review or Scoping Review? Guidance for Authors when Choosing between a Systematic or
Scoping Review Approach.” BMC Medical Research Methodology 18: Article 143.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-018-0611-x.

Healey, Mick, and Ruth L. Healey. 2023. “Reviewing the Literature on Scholarship of Teaching and Learning 18
(SoTL): An Academic Literacies Perspective Part 2.” Teaching & Learning Inquiry 11.
https://doi.org/10.20343/teachlearninqu.11.5
 REVIEWING THE LITERATURE ON SCHOLARSHIP OF TEACHING AND LEARNING (SOTL)

Ní Bheoláin, Ruth, Rob Lowney, and Fiona O’Riordan. 2020. Students as Partners in Assessment: A Literature Scoping
Review. Dublin: Dublin City University. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4270579.
Paré, Guy, Marie-Claude Trudel, Mirou Jaana, and Spyros Kitsiou. 2015. “Synthesizing Information Systems
Knowledge: A Typology of Literature Reviews.” Information & Management 52 (2): 183–99.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2014.08.008.
Pleschová, Gabriella, and Lynn McAlpine. 2015. “Enhancing University Teaching and Learning through
Mentoring: A Systematic Review of the Literature.” International Journal of Mentoring and Coaching in
Education 4 (2): 107–25. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJMCE-06-2014-0020.
Reedy, Alison Kay, and María Lucía Guerrero Farías. 2019. “Teaching and Learning Research in Higher Education
in Colombia: A Literature Review.” Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in the South 3 (2): 10–30.
https://doi.org/10.36615/sotls.v3i2.113.
Rethlefsen, Melissa L., Shona Kirtley, Siw Waffenschmidt, Ana Patricia Ayala, David Moher, Matthew J. Page,
Jonathan B. Koffel, and PRISMA-S Group. 2021. “PRISMA-S: An Extension to the PRISMA Statement for
Reporting Literature Searches in Systematic Reviews.” Systematic Reviews 10: Article 39.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-020-01542-z.
Rowland, Susan L., and Paula Myatt. 2014. “Getting Started in the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning: A ‘How
To’ Guide for Science Academics.” Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education 42 (1): 6–14.
https://doi.org/10.1002/bmb.20748.
Sukhera, Javeed. 2022a. “Narrative Reviews: Flexible, Rigorous, and Practical.” Journal of Graduate Medical
Education, 14 (4): 414–17. https://doi.org/10.4300/JGME-D-22-00480.1.
Sukhera, Javeed. 2022b. “Narrative Reviews in Medical Education: Key Steps for Researchers.” Journal of Graduate
Medical Education, 14 (4): 418–19. https://doi.org/10.4300/JGME-D-22-00481.1.
Taylor Institute for Teaching and Learning. n.d. Situating Your Project within Larger Conversations: Doing a Lit
Review. Calgary: University of Calgary. (Accessed December 6, 2022).
http://sotl.ucalgaryblogs.ca/files/2015/11/2SoTLLitReview.pdf.
Thomson, Pat. 2018a. “Why is Writing a Literature Review Such Hard Work? Part One.” Patter. Last modified June
11, 2018. https://patthomson.net/2018/06/11/why-is-writing-a-literature-review-such-hard-work-part-one/.
Thomson, Pat. 2018b. “Quick Lit – Rapid Evidence Reviewing.” Patter. Last modified May 14, 2018.
https://patthomson.net/2018/05/14/quick-lit-rapid-evidence-reviewing/.
Thomson, Pat. 2019. “Introductions: Establishing Significance.” Patter. Last modified April 1, 2019.
https://patthomson.net/2019/04/01/write-a-compelling-introduction/.
Tight, Malcolm. 2018a. “Higher Education Journals: Their Characteristics and Contribution.” Higher Education
Research & Development 37 (3): 607–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2017.1389858.
Tight, Malcolm. 2018b. “Tracking the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning.” Policy Reviews in Higher Education 2
(1): 61–78. https://doi.org/10.1080/23322969.2017.1390690.
Tight, Malcolm. 2021. Syntheses of Higher Education Research: What We Know. London: Bloomsbury.
Torraco, Richard J. 2016. “Writing Integrative Literature Reviews: Using the Past and Present to Explore the
Future.” Human Resource Development Review 15 (4): 404–28. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484316671606.
Walter, Lori, and Jordan Stouck. 2020. “Writing the Literature Review: Graduate Student Experiences.” The
Canadian Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning 11 (1): Article 9. https://doi.org/10.5206/cjsotl-
rcacea.2020.1.8295.
Webb, Oliver, Lynne Wyness, and Debby Cotton. 2017. Enhancing Access, Retention, Attainment and Progression in
Higher Education: A Review of the Literature Showing Demonstrable Impact. York: HE Academy.
https://www.advance-he.ac.uk/knowledge-hub/enhancing-access-retention-attainment-and-progression-
higher-education.
Weller, Saranne. 2011. “New Lecturers’ Accounts of Reading Higher Education Research.” Studies in Continuing
Education 33 (1): 93–106. https://doi.org/10.1080/0158037X.2010.516744.
Wilson, Anne. 2022. “Using Literature Reviews to Strengthen Research: Tips for PhDs and Supervisors.” Times
Higher. Last modified March 9, 2022. https://www.timeshighereducation.com/campus/using-literature-
reviews-strengthen-research-tips-phds-and-supervisors.

Healey, Mick, and Ruth L. Healey. 2023. “Reviewing the Literature on Scholarship of Teaching and Learning 19
(SoTL): An Academic Literacies Perspective Part 2.” Teaching & Learning Inquiry 11.
https://doi.org/10.20343/teachlearninqu.11.5
Healey, M., Healey, R. L.

Copyright for the content of articles published in Teaching & Learning Inquiry resides with the
authors, and copyright for the publication layout resides with the journal. These copyright holders
have agreed that this article should be available on open access under a Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0
International (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/). The only constraint on reproduction and distribution,
and the only role for copyright in this domain, should be to give authors control over the integrity of their work and the
right to be properly acknowledged and cited, and to cite Teaching & Learning Inquiry as the original place of publication.
Readers are free to share these materials—as long as appropriate credit is given, a link to the license is provided, and
any changes are indicated.

Healey, Mick, and Ruth L. Healey. 2023. “Reviewing the Literature on Scholarship of Teaching and Learning 20
(SoTL): An Academic Literacies Perspective Part 2.” Teaching & Learning Inquiry 11.
https://doi.org/10.20343/teachlearninqu.11.5