Before you can move your research forward, you need to know what’s already been done. The Review of Related Studies (RRS) dives into past research that connects directly to your topic, highlighting findings, methods, and gaps you can build on.

This section gives your study a solid foundation by showing where your work fits in the larger research landscape and how it contributes something new.

The Review of Related Studies (RRS) is a focused analysis of existing empirical research, such as theses, dissertations, journal articles, and published reports, that are directly connected to your topic. It centers on studies that used real methods, data, and findings, providing a research-based foundation for your study.

Unlike the Review of Related Literature (RRL), which includes theories and conceptual discussions, the RRS highlights what has already been tested, measured, or observed in actual studies.

The RRS answers key questions like:

  • What studies have already been conducted on this topic?
  • What methods and instruments did other researchers use?
  • What were their key findings or results?
  • What patterns or contradictions exist across studies?
  • What gaps still need to be explored?
  • How does your study build on or differ from existing work?

In short, while the RRL explains the “why” behind your topic, the RRS shows the “how” it has already been studied. The RRL builds your theoretical foundation, while the RRS supports your study with real-world evidence.

The Review of Related Studies serves a critical role in shaping your research. It doesn’t just summarize what others have done; it strategically positions your study within the existing body of work. By reviewing past studies, you’re not starting from scratch; you’re building on tested methods, findings, and gaps.

The main purposes of the RRS are to:

  1. Establish context: Show the current state of research related to your topic.
  2. Avoid duplication: Ensure your study brings something new, not just repeating what’s already been done.
  3. Identify research gaps: Spot unanswered questions or underexplored areas that your study will address.
  4. Support your methodology: Justify your choice of research design, tools, or sampling by referencing what worked in past studies.
  5. Strengthen your rationale: Prove that your research is relevant, timely, and evidence-based.
  6. Compare and contrast: Analyze similarities and differences in previous findings that help clarify your study’s direction.

In short, the RRS proves that you’re not guessing, you’re informed, strategic, and contributing something meaningful to the academic community.

In the Review of Related Studies, not all research is the same. To give your study a strong foundation, you need to include varied types of empirical studies that provide different perspectives, approaches, and levels of evidence. These studies help validate your research direction and show that your work is grounded in real, tested knowledge.

1. Quantitative Studies

These focus on numerical data, measurement, and statistics. They test hypotheses and identify patterns through tools like surveys, experiments, and standardized tests.

Use this when you want to show trends, relationships, or measurable outcomes.

2. Qualitative Studies

These explore non-numerical data, such as interviews, focus groups, or observations. They help explain experiences, behaviors, and meanings behind actions.

Use this when depth, context, and personal insight are important.

3. Mixed-Methods Studies

These combine both quantitative and qualitative approaches, giving a balanced view of data and experience.

Use this to show both the “what” and the “why” behind findings.

4. Local and Foreign Studies

  • Local studies give context and relevance to your setting (e.g., same country, region, or culture).
  • Foreign studies allow you to compare international findings, methods, and outcomes.

Using both shows how your topic is studied globally and locally.

5. Academic Theses and Dissertations

These are studies done by undergraduate, master’s, or doctoral students. They’re often rich in detail and closely tied to your field of interest.

Use this to connect with real academic work and practical research problems.

6. Peer-Reviewed Journal Articles

These are high-quality, published studies that have been reviewed by experts. They’re reliable, current, and widely accepted in academic circles.

Use this as your primary source of evidence.

7. Institutional and Government Research

Published by agencies, universities, or research organizations, these studies often involve large-scale or policy-driven data.

Use this to back your study with real-world applications and authority.

These different types of studies help you present a more diverse, credible, and well-rounded RRS. The key is choosing those that are directly relevant, updated, and empirically solid to strengthen your research framework.

Your Review of Related Studies (RRS) isn’t just a list of past research; it’s a strategic selection of studies that support, strengthen, or inform your research direction. Below is a quick overview of what to include, followed by a deeper breakdown of each element:

Your RRS Includes:

  • Relevant key studies: Research directly connected to your topic, variables, or population. No fillers: only studies that matter.
  • Author(s), year, and title: Who did the study, when, and what it was about. Builds credibility and timeline context.
  • Purpose of the study: What the researchers aimed to find out. Gives direction and intent.
  • Methodology used: The research design, tools, and participants. Justifies your research approach.
  • Key findings/results: The major takeaways. This is what your research responds to.
  • Connection to your study: How it supports, contrasts, or relates to your research. Always show relevance.
  • Gaps or limitations: What the study didn’t solve. This is where your study steps in.

Relevant key studies

Choose only studies that connect directly to your research problem, variables, or population. Don’t just drop in random studies to make it look long—focus on those that actually contribute to your understanding or support your argument.

Ask yourself: Does this study help answer my research questions or support my framework?

Author(s), year, and title

Always mention who conducted the study, when it was published, and the title or focus of the research. This builds credibility and allows readers to look up the full source if they want to. It also helps show whether the findings are up-to-date.

Example: “In a 2021 study, Reyes examined the impact of online learning on student motivation.”

Purpose of the study

State clearly what the researchers were trying to discover or explore. This helps readers understand why the study was done and sets the stage for comparing it with your own goals.

Example: “The study aimed to measure the effectiveness of blended learning in senior high school settings.”

Methodology used

Summarize the research design (quantitative, qualitative, or mixed-methods), data-gathering tools (surveys, interviews, etc.), and participants involved. This is key for identifying if the study’s approach is similar or different from yours.

It helps justify why you’re choosing a certain method in your own research.

Key findings/results

Highlight the major takeaways or conclusions of the study. What did the researchers find out? These findings often help build your argument or show patterns across studies.

Keep it brief but meaningful, don’t just copy results; interpret them.

Connection to your study

Don’t just summarize, explain how each study is relevant to your own. Does it support your topic? Does it use the same variables? Did it identify a problem you also want to explore? This shows you’re not just reviewing, you’re synthesizing.

This is where you link past research to your present direction.

Gaps or limitations

Point out what the study didn’t cover or where its limitations lie, maybe the sample was too small, the context too narrow, or certain variables were ignored. These gaps help justify why your study matters.

This is your chance to show where your research can step in and contribute something new.

Tip: Every study should do something to support your research, show a gap, or justify your design. If it doesn’t, cut it to support your ideas, highlight missing pieces, or justify your choices.

A powerful RRS doesn’t just list past work; it connects it, critiques it, and uses it with purpose. To make yours solid, here are the key qualities it should have:

Focused and Relevant

Only include studies that are directly related to your topic, variables, or framework. Irrelevant studies make your work look unfocused and padded.

Updated and Timely

Use recent studies (preferably within the last 5 years), unless older ones are landmark or foundational. Research evolves fast, your RRS should reflect the latest knowledge.

Organized and Logical Flow

Group studies thematically or chronologically, and present them in a way that tells a story from what’s known, to what’s missing, to where your study fits in.

Critical, Not Just Descriptive

Don’t just summarize, analyze. Show what’s strong, what’s weak, and where the gaps are. Highlight contradictions or trends. Be a thinker, not just a reporter.

Linked to Your Study

Each study you include should have a clear connection to your research. Explain how it supports your ideas, identifies a problem, or justifies your method.

Balanced and Diverse

Use both local and international studies if possible. Include a range of perspectives, methods, or findings to show you’ve explored the topic widely and fairly.

Properly Cited

Cite all your sources consistently using the required citation style (APA, MLA, etc.). This protects your work from plagiarism and shows academic integrity.

Tip: A strong RRS doesn’t just tell your reader what’s already known it sets the stage for what you’re about to add. Use it to back your study with real-world research, identify the gaps you’ll fill, and prove that your study has academic value.

Common Pitfalls to Avoid

A well-written Review of Related Studies (RRS) strengthens your research foundation. However, several common mistakes can weaken its impact.

Here are the key pitfalls to avoid, along with how to fix them:

PitfallDescriptionHow to Avoid It
1. Summarizing Without PurposeSimply listing what each study says without connecting it to your research.Always explain how each study supports, contrasts with, or informs your study.
2. Using Irrelevant SourcesIncluding studies that don’t align directly with your topic, variables, or objectives.Choose studies that clearly relate to your specific research questions or framework.
3. Including Too Many StudiesOverloading your RRS with excessive studies, causing loss of focus.Focus on quality over quantity. Select the most relevant and impactful research only.
4. Lack of Critical AnalysisOnly describing studies without evaluating strengths, limitations, or relevance.Analyze and synthesize. Show connections and provide insights, not just summaries.
5. Using Outdated ReferencesRelying heavily on old studies unless they are foundational.Prioritize recent research (within 5 years), unless older sources are key to your topic.
6. Inconsistent CitationsMixing citation styles or forgetting to cite altogether.Use a single, consistent citation format (APA, MLA, etc.). Double-check all citations.
7. Poor OrganizationPresenting studies in a random, confusing order with no logical structure.Structure your review thematically, chronologically, or methodologically.
8. Ignoring Gaps in the LiteratureFailing to show what past research missed or lacked.Highlight the limitations of existing studies and justify how your research fills those gaps.

The Review of Related Studies doesn’t stand alone it connects with every major part of your paper. It builds your foundation, guides your methods, and strengthens your arguments from start to finish.

  1. Introduction – Provides background and shows why your topic is worth studying.
  2. Statement of the Problem/Objectives – Identifies gaps in past studies that your research aims to address.
  3. Conceptual Framework – Helps you define key concepts, models, or variables used in your study.
  4. Methodology – Informs your design, tools, and procedures by referencing methods used in related research.
  5. Analysis/Discussion – Allows you to compare your results with past findings and explain similarities or differences.
  6. Conclusion/Recommendations – Supports your final insights and shows how your study fills a research gap.

The Review of Related Studies (RRS) is a key part of Chapter 2 that works hand in hand with the theoretical framework, literature synthesis, and identified research gaps. Use these resources and writing tools to strengthen your RRS and link it smoothly to the rest of your study.

Chapter 2 Structure & Flow

Writing Guides & How-To

  • How to Write a Strong Review of Related Studies →
  • How to Conduct a Literature Search Efficiently →
  • How to Identify Research Gaps →
  • How to Synthesize Multiple Studies →
  • How to Properly Cite Sources →

Support Strategy Guides

  • How to Link Related Studies to Your Research Questions →
  • How to Critically Analyze Past Research →
  • How to Organize Your Review Logically →
  • Common Mistakes to Avoid in the RRS →
  • How to Use Related Studies to Justify Your Methodology →

Tools & Resources

  • 📄 RRS Planning Template – Organize studies, themes, and gaps
  • ✅ Relevance Checklist – Ensure studies clearly connect to your topic
  • 🔍 Sample Reviews – Examples from published theses and articles
  • 📘 Academic Writing Books – Guides on research writing and synthesis
  • 🎨 Visualization Tools – Mind mapping and concept mapping software
  • 🧾 Peer Review Checklist – Self-assess or get feedback on your RRS draft

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) about the Review of Related Studies

What is the Review of Related Studies?

It’s a section where you summarize and analyze previous research related to your topic. It helps show what’s already known and what gaps your study will fill.

How is the Review of Related Studies different from the Review of Related Literature?

How many studies should I include?

Should I just summarize the studies?

What if I find conflicting results in the studies?

How recent should the studies be?

How do I organize the Review of Related Studies?

Can I include foreign studies?

Final Thoughts

The Review of Related Studies is not just a list of past research; it’s a strong base for your study. A good review shows you understand the topic, points out what’s missing, and helps explain why your research is important. Make sure to pick studies that matter, explain them clearly, and connect them to your work.

Avoid just copying summaries or using old sources. Keep your review focused and organized. When done well, your review makes your whole research stronger and easier to follow.

Getting your Review of Related Studies right is a big step toward writing a great research paper.

Note: We’re not your school’s official research coordinator, but our guides are designed to support and guide your writing process. Always follow your institution’s specific guidelines and formatting requirements.

Stay updated and never miss important scholarship, research, and other announcements through our official channels:

📧 Subscribe to our Email Newsletter for Updates

Information Disclaimer

Notice:

Philscholar® is an informational platform dedicated to sharing scholarship and grant opportunities. While we provide guides and articles to assist with admissions and scholarship applications, we do not directly process applications or award scholarships.

Users are encouraged to verify all details independently, as information is for reference purposes only. While we strive for accuracy, scholarship criteria, deadlines, and other details may change without prior notice.

For further verification or inquiries, please refer to the official sources provided at the end of the content section.

Was this article helpful?
YesNo

Discover more from PhilScholar

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.


Comments

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Discover more from PhilScholar

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading