literature survey research methodology

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, generate accurate citations for free.

• Knowledge Base

Methodology

• How to Write a Literature Review | Guide, Examples, & Templates

How to Write a Literature Review | Guide, Examples, & Templates

Published on January 2, 2023 by Shona McCombes . Revised on September 11, 2023.

What is a literature review? A literature review is a survey of scholarly sources on a specific topic. It provides an overview of current knowledge, allowing you to identify relevant theories, methods, and gaps in the existing research that you can later apply to your paper, thesis, or dissertation topic .

There are five key steps to writing a literature review:

• Search for relevant literature
• Evaluate sources
• Identify themes, debates, and gaps
• Outline the structure
• Write your literature review

A good literature review doesn’t just summarize sources—it analyzes, synthesizes , and critically evaluates to give a clear picture of the state of knowledge on the subject.

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

Upload your document to correct all your mistakes in minutes

Table of contents

What is the purpose of a literature review, examples of literature reviews, step 1 – search for relevant literature, step 2 – evaluate and select sources, step 3 – identify themes, debates, and gaps, step 4 – outline your literature review’s structure, step 5 – write your literature review, free lecture slides, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions, introduction.

• Quick Run-through
• Step 1 & 2

When you write a thesis , dissertation , or research paper , you will likely have to conduct a literature review to situate your research within existing knowledge. The literature review gives you a chance to:

• Demonstrate your familiarity with the topic and its scholarly context
• Develop a theoretical framework and methodology for your research
• Position your work in relation to other researchers and theorists
• Show how your research addresses a gap or contributes to a debate
• Evaluate the current state of research and demonstrate your knowledge of the scholarly debates around your topic.

Writing literature reviews is a particularly important skill if you want to apply for graduate school or pursue a career in research. We’ve written a step-by-step guide that you can follow below.

Here's why students love Scribbr's proofreading services

Discover proofreading & editing

Writing literature reviews can be quite challenging! A good starting point could be to look at some examples, depending on what kind of literature review you’d like to write.

• Example literature review #1: “Why Do People Migrate? A Review of the Theoretical Literature” ( Theoretical literature review about the development of economic migration theory from the 1950s to today.)
• Example literature review #2: “Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines” ( Methodological literature review about interdisciplinary knowledge acquisition and production.)
• Example literature review #3: “The Use of Technology in English Language Learning: A Literature Review” ( Thematic literature review about the effects of technology on language acquisition.)
• Example literature review #4: “Learners’ Listening Comprehension Difficulties in English Language Learning: A Literature Review” ( Chronological literature review about how the concept of listening skills has changed over time.)

You can also check out our templates with literature review examples and sample outlines at the links below.

Download Word doc Download Google doc

Before you begin searching for literature, you need a clearly defined topic .

If you are writing the literature review section of a dissertation or research paper, you will search for literature related to your research problem and questions .

Make a list of keywords

Start by creating a list of keywords related to your research question. Include each of the key concepts or variables you’re interested in, and list any synonyms and related terms. You can add to this list as you discover new keywords in the process of your literature search.

• Social media, Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, Snapchat, TikTok
• Body image, self-perception, self-esteem, mental health
• Generation Z, teenagers, adolescents, youth

Search for relevant sources

Use your keywords to begin searching for sources. Some useful databases to search for journals and articles include:

• Your university’s library catalogue
• Google Scholar
• Project Muse (humanities and social sciences)
• Medline (life sciences and biomedicine)
• EconLit (economics)
• Inspec (physics, engineering and computer science)

You can also use boolean operators to help narrow down your search.

Make sure to read the abstract to find out whether an article is relevant to your question. When you find a useful book or article, you can check the bibliography to find other relevant sources.

You likely won’t be able to read absolutely everything that has been written on your topic, so it will be necessary to evaluate which sources are most relevant to your research question.

For each publication, ask yourself:

• What question or problem is the author addressing?
• What are the key concepts and how are they defined?
• What are the key theories, models, and methods?
• Does the research use established frameworks or take an innovative approach?
• What are the results and conclusions of the study?
• How does the publication relate to other literature in the field? Does it confirm, add to, or challenge established knowledge?
• What are the strengths and weaknesses of the research?

Make sure the sources you use are credible , and make sure you read any landmark studies and major theories in your field of research.

You can use our template to summarize and evaluate sources you’re thinking about using. Click on either button below to download.

Take notes and cite your sources

As you read, you should also begin the writing process. Take notes that you can later incorporate into the text of your literature review.

It is important to keep track of your sources with citations to avoid plagiarism . It can be helpful to make an annotated bibliography , where you compile full citation information and write a paragraph of summary and analysis for each source. This helps you remember what you read and saves time later in the process.

To begin organizing your literature review’s argument and structure, be sure you understand the connections and relationships between the sources you’ve read. Based on your reading and notes, you can look for:

• Trends and patterns (in theory, method or results): do certain approaches become more or less popular over time?
• Themes: what questions or concepts recur across the literature?
• Debates, conflicts and contradictions: where do sources disagree?
• Pivotal publications: are there any influential theories or studies that changed the direction of the field?
• Gaps: what is missing from the literature? Are there weaknesses that need to be addressed?

This step will help you work out the structure of your literature review and (if applicable) show how your own research will contribute to existing knowledge.

• Most research has focused on young women.
• There is an increasing interest in the visual aspects of social media.
• But there is still a lack of robust research on highly visual platforms like Instagram and Snapchat—this is a gap that you could address in your own research.

There are various approaches to organizing the body of a literature review. Depending on the length of your literature review, you can combine several of these strategies (for example, your overall structure might be thematic, but each theme is discussed chronologically).

Chronological

The simplest approach is to trace the development of the topic over time. However, if you choose this strategy, be careful to avoid simply listing and summarizing sources in order.

Try to analyze patterns, turning points and key debates that have shaped the direction of the field. Give your interpretation of how and why certain developments occurred.

If you have found some recurring central themes, you can organize your literature review into subsections that address different aspects of the topic.

For example, if you are reviewing literature about inequalities in migrant health outcomes, key themes might include healthcare policy, language barriers, cultural attitudes, legal status, and economic access.

Methodological

If you draw your sources from different disciplines or fields that use a variety of research methods , you might want to compare the results and conclusions that emerge from different approaches. For example:

• Look at what results have emerged in qualitative versus quantitative research
• Discuss how the topic has been approached by empirical versus theoretical scholarship
• Divide the literature into sociological, historical, and cultural sources

Theoretical

A literature review is often the foundation for a theoretical framework . You can use it to discuss various theories, models, and definitions of key concepts.

You might argue for the relevance of a specific theoretical approach, or combine various theoretical concepts to create a framework for your research.

Like any other academic text , your literature review should have an introduction , a main body, and a conclusion . What you include in each depends on the objective of your literature review.

The introduction should clearly establish the focus and purpose of the literature review.

Depending on the length of your literature review, you might want to divide the body into subsections. You can use a subheading for each theme, time period, or methodological approach.

As you write, you can follow these tips:

• Summarize and synthesize: give an overview of the main points of each source and combine them into a coherent whole
• Analyze and interpret: don’t just paraphrase other researchers — add your own interpretations where possible, discussing the significance of findings in relation to the literature as a whole
• Critically evaluate: mention the strengths and weaknesses of your sources
• Write in well-structured paragraphs: use transition words and topic sentences to draw connections, comparisons and contrasts

In the conclusion, you should summarize the key findings you have taken from the literature and emphasize their significance.

When you’ve finished writing and revising your literature review, don’t forget to proofread thoroughly before submitting. Not a language expert? Check out Scribbr’s professional proofreading services !

This article has been adapted into lecture slides that you can use to teach your students about writing a literature review.

Scribbr slides are free to use, customize, and distribute for educational purposes.

Open Google Slides Download PowerPoint

If you want to know more about the research process , methodology , research bias , or statistics , make sure to check out some of our other articles with explanations and examples.

• Sampling methods
• Simple random sampling
• Stratified sampling
• Cluster sampling
• Likert scales
• Reproducibility

 Statistics

• Null hypothesis
• Statistical power
• Probability distribution
• Effect size
• Poisson distribution

Research bias

• Optimism bias
• Cognitive bias
• Implicit bias
• Hawthorne effect
• Anchoring bias
• Explicit bias

A literature review is a survey of scholarly sources (such as books, journal articles, and theses) related to a specific topic or research question .

It is often written as part of a thesis, dissertation , or research paper , in order to situate your work in relation to existing knowledge.

There are several reasons to conduct a literature review at the beginning of a research project:

• To familiarize yourself with the current state of knowledge on your topic
• To ensure that you’re not just repeating what others have already done
• To identify gaps in knowledge and unresolved problems that your research can address
• To develop your theoretical framework and methodology
• To provide an overview of the key findings and debates on the topic

Writing the literature review shows your reader how your work relates to existing research and what new insights it will contribute.

The literature review usually comes near the beginning of your thesis or dissertation . After the introduction , it grounds your research in a scholarly field and leads directly to your theoretical framework or methodology .

A literature review is a survey of credible sources on a topic, often used in dissertations , theses, and research papers . Literature reviews give an overview of knowledge on a subject, helping you identify relevant theories and methods, as well as gaps in existing research. Literature reviews are set up similarly to other  academic texts , with an introduction , a main body, and a conclusion .

An  annotated bibliography is a list of  source references that has a short description (called an annotation ) for each of the sources. It is often assigned as part of the research process for a  paper .  

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the “Cite this Scribbr article” button to automatically add the citation to our free Citation Generator.

McCombes, S. (2023, September 11). How to Write a Literature Review | Guide, Examples, & Templates. Scribbr. Retrieved July 8, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/dissertation/literature-review/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

Other students also liked, what is a theoretical framework | guide to organizing, what is a research methodology | steps & tips, how to write a research proposal | examples & templates, get unlimited documents corrected.

✔ Free APA citation check included ✔ Unlimited document corrections ✔ Specialized in correcting academic texts

Research Methods

• Getting Started
• Literature Review Research
• Research Design
• Research Design By Discipline
• SAGE Research Methods
• Teaching with SAGE Research Methods

Literature Review

• What is a Literature Review?
• What is NOT a Literature Review?
• Purposes of a Literature Review
• Types of Literature Reviews
• Literature Reviews vs. Systematic Reviews
• Systematic vs. Meta-Analysis

Literature Review  is a comprehensive survey of the works published in a particular field of study or line of research, usually over a specific period of time, in the form of an in-depth, critical bibliographic essay or annotated list in which attention is drawn to the most significant works.

Also, we can define a literature review as the collected body of scholarly works related to a topic:

• Summarizes and analyzes previous research relevant to a topic
• Includes scholarly books and articles published in academic journals
• Can be an specific scholarly paper or a section in a research paper

The objective of a Literature Review is to find previous published scholarly works relevant to an specific topic

• Help gather ideas or information
• Keep up to date in current trends and findings
• Help develop new questions

A literature review is important because it:

• Explains the background of research on a topic.
• Demonstrates why a topic is significant to a subject area.
• Helps focus your own research questions or problems
• Discovers relationships between research studies/ideas.
• Suggests unexplored ideas or populations
• Identifies major themes, concepts, and researchers on a topic.
• Tests assumptions; may help counter preconceived ideas and remove unconscious bias.
• Identifies critical gaps, points of disagreement, or potentially flawed methodology or theoretical approaches.
• Indicates potential directions for future research.

All content in this section is from Literature Review Research from Old Dominion University 

Keep in mind the following, a literature review is NOT:

Not an essay 

Not an annotated bibliography  in which you summarize each article that you have reviewed.  A literature review goes beyond basic summarizing to focus on the critical analysis of the reviewed works and their relationship to your research question.

Not a research paper   where you select resources to support one side of an issue versus another.  A lit review should explain and consider all sides of an argument in order to avoid bias, and areas of agreement and disagreement should be highlighted.

A literature review serves several purposes. For example, it

• provides thorough knowledge of previous studies; introduces seminal works.
• helps focus one’s own research topic.
• identifies a conceptual framework for one’s own research questions or problems; indicates potential directions for future research.
• suggests previously unused or underused methodologies, designs, quantitative and qualitative strategies.
• identifies gaps in previous studies; identifies flawed methodologies and/or theoretical approaches; avoids replication of mistakes.
• helps the researcher avoid repetition of earlier research.
• suggests unexplored populations.
• determines whether past studies agree or disagree; identifies controversy in the literature.
• tests assumptions; may help counter preconceived ideas and remove unconscious bias.

As Kennedy (2007) notes*, it is important to think of knowledge in a given field as consisting of three layers. First, there are the primary studies that researchers conduct and publish. Second are the reviews of those studies that summarize and offer new interpretations built from and often extending beyond the original studies. Third, there are the perceptions, conclusions, opinion, and interpretations that are shared informally that become part of the lore of field. In composing a literature review, it is important to note that it is often this third layer of knowledge that is cited as "true" even though it often has only a loose relationship to the primary studies and secondary literature reviews.

Given this, while literature reviews are designed to provide an overview and synthesis of pertinent sources you have explored, there are several approaches to how they can be done, depending upon the type of analysis underpinning your study. Listed below are definitions of types of literature reviews:

Argumentative Review      This form examines literature selectively in order to support or refute an argument, deeply imbedded assumption, or philosophical problem already established in the literature. The purpose is to develop a body of literature that establishes a contrarian viewpoint. Given the value-laden nature of some social science research [e.g., educational reform; immigration control], argumentative approaches to analyzing the literature can be a legitimate and important form of discourse. However, note that they can also introduce problems of bias when they are used to to make summary claims of the sort found in systematic reviews.

Integrative Review      Considered a form of research that reviews, critiques, and synthesizes representative literature on a topic in an integrated way such that new frameworks and perspectives on the topic are generated. The body of literature includes all studies that address related or identical hypotheses. A well-done integrative review meets the same standards as primary research in regard to clarity, rigor, and replication.

Historical Review      Few things rest in isolation from historical precedent. Historical reviews are focused on examining research throughout a period of time, often starting with the first time an issue, concept, theory, phenomena emerged in the literature, then tracing its evolution within the scholarship of a discipline. The purpose is to place research in a historical context to show familiarity with state-of-the-art developments and to identify the likely directions for future research.

Methodological Review      A review does not always focus on what someone said [content], but how they said it [method of analysis]. This approach provides a framework of understanding at different levels (i.e. those of theory, substantive fields, research approaches and data collection and analysis techniques), enables researchers to draw on a wide variety of knowledge ranging from the conceptual level to practical documents for use in fieldwork in the areas of ontological and epistemological consideration, quantitative and qualitative integration, sampling, interviewing, data collection and data analysis, and helps highlight many ethical issues which we should be aware of and consider as we go through our study.

Systematic Review      This form consists of an overview of existing evidence pertinent to a clearly formulated research question, which uses pre-specified and standardized methods to identify and critically appraise relevant research, and to collect, report, and analyse data from the studies that are included in the review. Typically it focuses on a very specific empirical question, often posed in a cause-and-effect form, such as "To what extent does A contribute to B?"

Theoretical Review      The purpose of this form is to concretely examine the corpus of theory that has accumulated in regard to an issue, concept, theory, phenomena. The theoretical literature review help establish what theories already exist, the relationships between them, to what degree the existing theories have been investigated, and to develop new hypotheses to be tested. Often this form is used to help establish a lack of appropriate theories or reveal that current theories are inadequate for explaining new or emerging research problems. The unit of analysis can focus on a theoretical concept or a whole theory or framework.

* Kennedy, Mary M. "Defining a Literature."  Educational Researcher  36 (April 2007): 139-147.

All content in this section is from The Literature Review created by Dr. Robert Larabee USC

Robinson, P. and Lowe, J. (2015),  Literature reviews vs systematic reviews.  Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, 39: 103-103. doi: 10.1111/1753-6405.12393

What's in the name? The difference between a Systematic Review and a Literature Review, and why it matters . By Lynn Kysh from University of Southern California

Systematic review or meta-analysis?

A  systematic review  answers a defined research question by collecting and summarizing all empirical evidence that fits pre-specified eligibility criteria.

A  meta-analysis  is the use of statistical methods to summarize the results of these studies.

Systematic reviews, just like other research articles, can be of varying quality. They are a significant piece of work (the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination at York estimates that a team will take 9-24 months), and to be useful to other researchers and practitioners they should have:

• clearly stated objectives with pre-defined eligibility criteria for studies
• explicit, reproducible methodology
• a systematic search that attempts to identify all studies
• assessment of the validity of the findings of the included studies (e.g. risk of bias)
• systematic presentation, and synthesis, of the characteristics and findings of the included studies

Not all systematic reviews contain meta-analysis. 

Meta-analysis is the use of statistical methods to summarize the results of independent studies. By combining information from all relevant studies, meta-analysis can provide more precise estimates of the effects of health care than those derived from the individual studies included within a review.  More information on meta-analyses can be found in  Cochrane Handbook, Chapter 9 .

A meta-analysis goes beyond critique and integration and conducts secondary statistical analysis on the outcomes of similar studies.  It is a systematic review that uses quantitative methods to synthesize and summarize the results.

An advantage of a meta-analysis is the ability to be completely objective in evaluating research findings.  Not all topics, however, have sufficient research evidence to allow a meta-analysis to be conducted.  In that case, an integrative review is an appropriate strategy. 

Some of the content in this section is from Systematic reviews and meta-analyses: step by step guide created by Kate McAllister.

• << Previous: Getting Started
• Next: Research Design >>
• Last Updated: Aug 21, 2023 4:07 PM
• URL: https://guides.lib.udel.edu/researchmethods

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, automatically generate references for free.

• Knowledge Base
• Dissertation
• What is a Literature Review? | Guide, Template, & Examples

What is a Literature Review? | Guide, Template, & Examples

Published on 22 February 2022 by Shona McCombes . Revised on 7 June 2022.

What is a literature review? A literature review is a survey of scholarly sources on a specific topic. It provides an overview of current knowledge, allowing you to identify relevant theories, methods, and gaps in the existing research.

There are five key steps to writing a literature review:

• Search for relevant literature
• Evaluate sources
• Identify themes, debates and gaps
• Outline the structure
• Write your literature review

A good literature review doesn’t just summarise sources – it analyses, synthesises, and critically evaluates to give a clear picture of the state of knowledge on the subject.

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

Be assured that you'll submit flawless writing. Upload your document to correct all your mistakes.

Table of contents

Why write a literature review, examples of literature reviews, step 1: search for relevant literature, step 2: evaluate and select sources, step 3: identify themes, debates and gaps, step 4: outline your literature review’s structure, step 5: write your literature review, frequently asked questions about literature reviews, introduction.

• Quick Run-through
• Step 1 & 2

When you write a dissertation or thesis, you will have to conduct a literature review to situate your research within existing knowledge. The literature review gives you a chance to:

• Demonstrate your familiarity with the topic and scholarly context
• Develop a theoretical framework and methodology for your research
• Position yourself in relation to other researchers and theorists
• Show how your dissertation addresses a gap or contributes to a debate

You might also have to write a literature review as a stand-alone assignment. In this case, the purpose is to evaluate the current state of research and demonstrate your knowledge of scholarly debates around a topic.

The content will look slightly different in each case, but the process of conducting a literature review follows the same steps. We’ve written a step-by-step guide that you can follow below.

The only proofreading tool specialized in correcting academic writing

The academic proofreading tool has been trained on 1000s of academic texts and by native English editors. Making it the most accurate and reliable proofreading tool for students.

Correct my document today

Writing literature reviews can be quite challenging! A good starting point could be to look at some examples, depending on what kind of literature review you’d like to write.

• Example literature review #1: “Why Do People Migrate? A Review of the Theoretical Literature” ( Theoretical literature review about the development of economic migration theory from the 1950s to today.)
• Example literature review #2: “Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines” ( Methodological literature review about interdisciplinary knowledge acquisition and production.)
• Example literature review #3: “The Use of Technology in English Language Learning: A Literature Review” ( Thematic literature review about the effects of technology on language acquisition.)
• Example literature review #4: “Learners’ Listening Comprehension Difficulties in English Language Learning: A Literature Review” ( Chronological literature review about how the concept of listening skills has changed over time.)

You can also check out our templates with literature review examples and sample outlines at the links below.

Download Word doc Download Google doc

Before you begin searching for literature, you need a clearly defined topic .

If you are writing the literature review section of a dissertation or research paper, you will search for literature related to your research objectives and questions .

If you are writing a literature review as a stand-alone assignment, you will have to choose a focus and develop a central question to direct your search. Unlike a dissertation research question, this question has to be answerable without collecting original data. You should be able to answer it based only on a review of existing publications.

Make a list of keywords

Start by creating a list of keywords related to your research topic. Include each of the key concepts or variables you’re interested in, and list any synonyms and related terms. You can add to this list if you discover new keywords in the process of your literature search.

• Social media, Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, Snapchat, TikTok
• Body image, self-perception, self-esteem, mental health
• Generation Z, teenagers, adolescents, youth

Search for relevant sources

Use your keywords to begin searching for sources. Some databases to search for journals and articles include:

• Your university’s library catalogue
• Google Scholar
• Project Muse (humanities and social sciences)
• Medline (life sciences and biomedicine)
• EconLit (economics)
• Inspec (physics, engineering and computer science)

You can use boolean operators to help narrow down your search:

Read the abstract to find out whether an article is relevant to your question. When you find a useful book or article, you can check the bibliography to find other relevant sources.

To identify the most important publications on your topic, take note of recurring citations. If the same authors, books or articles keep appearing in your reading, make sure to seek them out.

You probably won’t be able to read absolutely everything that has been written on the topic – you’ll have to evaluate which sources are most relevant to your questions.

For each publication, ask yourself:

• What question or problem is the author addressing?
• What are the key concepts and how are they defined?
• What are the key theories, models and methods? Does the research use established frameworks or take an innovative approach?
• What are the results and conclusions of the study?
• How does the publication relate to other literature in the field? Does it confirm, add to, or challenge established knowledge?
• How does the publication contribute to your understanding of the topic? What are its key insights and arguments?
• What are the strengths and weaknesses of the research?

Make sure the sources you use are credible, and make sure you read any landmark studies and major theories in your field of research.

You can find out how many times an article has been cited on Google Scholar – a high citation count means the article has been influential in the field, and should certainly be included in your literature review.

The scope of your review will depend on your topic and discipline: in the sciences you usually only review recent literature, but in the humanities you might take a long historical perspective (for example, to trace how a concept has changed in meaning over time).

Remember that you can use our template to summarise and evaluate sources you’re thinking about using!

Take notes and cite your sources

As you read, you should also begin the writing process. Take notes that you can later incorporate into the text of your literature review.

It’s important to keep track of your sources with references to avoid plagiarism . It can be helpful to make an annotated bibliography, where you compile full reference information and write a paragraph of summary and analysis for each source. This helps you remember what you read and saves time later in the process.

You can use our free APA Reference Generator for quick, correct, consistent citations.

Prevent plagiarism, run a free check.

To begin organising your literature review’s argument and structure, you need to understand the connections and relationships between the sources you’ve read. Based on your reading and notes, you can look for:

• Trends and patterns (in theory, method or results): do certain approaches become more or less popular over time?
• Themes: what questions or concepts recur across the literature?
• Debates, conflicts and contradictions: where do sources disagree?
• Pivotal publications: are there any influential theories or studies that changed the direction of the field?
• Gaps: what is missing from the literature? Are there weaknesses that need to be addressed?

This step will help you work out the structure of your literature review and (if applicable) show how your own research will contribute to existing knowledge.

• Most research has focused on young women.
• There is an increasing interest in the visual aspects of social media.
• But there is still a lack of robust research on highly-visual platforms like Instagram and Snapchat – this is a gap that you could address in your own research.

There are various approaches to organising the body of a literature review. You should have a rough idea of your strategy before you start writing.

Depending on the length of your literature review, you can combine several of these strategies (for example, your overall structure might be thematic, but each theme is discussed chronologically).

Chronological

The simplest approach is to trace the development of the topic over time. However, if you choose this strategy, be careful to avoid simply listing and summarising sources in order.

Try to analyse patterns, turning points and key debates that have shaped the direction of the field. Give your interpretation of how and why certain developments occurred.

If you have found some recurring central themes, you can organise your literature review into subsections that address different aspects of the topic.

For example, if you are reviewing literature about inequalities in migrant health outcomes, key themes might include healthcare policy, language barriers, cultural attitudes, legal status, and economic access.

Methodological

If you draw your sources from different disciplines or fields that use a variety of research methods , you might want to compare the results and conclusions that emerge from different approaches. For example:

• Look at what results have emerged in qualitative versus quantitative research
• Discuss how the topic has been approached by empirical versus theoretical scholarship
• Divide the literature into sociological, historical, and cultural sources

Theoretical

A literature review is often the foundation for a theoretical framework . You can use it to discuss various theories, models, and definitions of key concepts.

You might argue for the relevance of a specific theoretical approach, or combine various theoretical concepts to create a framework for your research.

Like any other academic text, your literature review should have an introduction , a main body, and a conclusion . What you include in each depends on the objective of your literature review.

The introduction should clearly establish the focus and purpose of the literature review.

If you are writing the literature review as part of your dissertation or thesis, reiterate your central problem or research question and give a brief summary of the scholarly context. You can emphasise the timeliness of the topic (“many recent studies have focused on the problem of x”) or highlight a gap in the literature (“while there has been much research on x, few researchers have taken y into consideration”).

Depending on the length of your literature review, you might want to divide the body into subsections. You can use a subheading for each theme, time period, or methodological approach.

As you write, make sure to follow these tips:

• Summarise and synthesise: give an overview of the main points of each source and combine them into a coherent whole.
• Analyse and interpret: don’t just paraphrase other researchers – add your own interpretations, discussing the significance of findings in relation to the literature as a whole.
• Critically evaluate: mention the strengths and weaknesses of your sources.
• Write in well-structured paragraphs: use transitions and topic sentences to draw connections, comparisons and contrasts.

In the conclusion, you should summarise the key findings you have taken from the literature and emphasise their significance.

If the literature review is part of your dissertation or thesis, reiterate how your research addresses gaps and contributes new knowledge, or discuss how you have drawn on existing theories and methods to build a framework for your research. This can lead directly into your methodology section.

A literature review is a survey of scholarly sources (such as books, journal articles, and theses) related to a specific topic or research question .

It is often written as part of a dissertation , thesis, research paper , or proposal .

There are several reasons to conduct a literature review at the beginning of a research project:

• To familiarise yourself with the current state of knowledge on your topic
• To ensure that you’re not just repeating what others have already done
• To identify gaps in knowledge and unresolved problems that your research can address
• To develop your theoretical framework and methodology
• To provide an overview of the key findings and debates on the topic

Writing the literature review shows your reader how your work relates to existing research and what new insights it will contribute.

The literature review usually comes near the beginning of your  dissertation . After the introduction , it grounds your research in a scholarly field and leads directly to your theoretical framework or methodology .

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the ‘Cite this Scribbr article’ button to automatically add the citation to our free Reference Generator.

McCombes, S. (2022, June 07). What is a Literature Review? | Guide, Template, & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved 8 July 2024, from https://www.scribbr.co.uk/thesis-dissertation/literature-review/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

Other students also liked, how to write a dissertation proposal | a step-by-step guide, what is a theoretical framework | a step-by-step guide, what is a research methodology | steps & tips.

Last updated 27/06/24: Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website: https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings .

Login Alert

• > The Cambridge Handbook of Research Methods and Statistics for the Social and Behavioral Sciences
• > Literature Review

Book contents

• The Cambridge Handbook of Research Methods and Statistics for the Social and Behavioral Sciences
• Cambridge Handbooks in Psychology
• Copyright page
• Contributors
• Part I From Idea to Reality: The Basics of Research
• 1 Promises and Pitfalls of Theory
• 2 Research Ethics for the Social and Behavioral Sciences
• 3 Getting Good Ideas and Making the Most of Them
• 4 Literature Review
• 5 Choosing a Research Design
• 6 Building the Study
• 7 Analyzing Data
• 8 Writing the Paper
• Part II The Building Blocks of a Study
• Part III Data Collection
• Part IV Statistical Approaches
• Part V Tips for a Successful Research Career

4 - Literature Review

from Part I - From Idea to Reality: The Basics of Research

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 May 2023

A literature review is a survey of scholarly sources that establishes familiarity with and an understanding of current research in a particular field. It includes a critical analysis of the relationship among different works, seeking a synthesis and an explanation of gaps, while relating findings to the project at hand. It also serves as a foundational aspect of a well-grounded thesis or dissertation, reveals gaps in a specific field, and establishes credibility and need for those applying for a grant. The enormous amount of textual information necessitates the development of tools to help researchers effectively and efficiently process huge amounts of data and quickly search, classify, and assess their relevance. This chapter presents an assessable guide to writing a comprehensive review of literature. It begins with a discussion of the purpose of the literature review and then presents steps to conduct an organized, relevant review.

Access options

Save book to kindle.

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle .

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service .

• Literature Review
• By Rachel Adams Goertel
• Edited by Austin Lee Nichols , Central European University, Vienna , John Edlund , Rochester Institute of Technology, New York
• Book: The Cambridge Handbook of Research Methods and Statistics for the Social and Behavioral Sciences
• Online publication: 25 May 2023
• Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009010054.005

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox .

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive .

• UConn Library
• Literature Review: The What, Why and How-to Guide
• Introduction

Literature Review: The What, Why and How-to Guide — Introduction

• Getting Started
• How to Pick a Topic
• Strategies to Find Sources
• Evaluating Sources & Lit. Reviews
• Tips for Writing Literature Reviews
• Writing Literature Review: Useful Sites
• Citation Resources
• Other Academic Writings

What are Literature Reviews?

So, what is a literature review? "A literature review is an account of what has been published on a topic by accredited scholars and researchers. In writing the literature review, your purpose is to convey to your reader what knowledge and ideas have been established on a topic, and what their strengths and weaknesses are. As a piece of writing, the literature review must be defined by a guiding concept (e.g., your research objective, the problem or issue you are discussing, or your argumentative thesis). It is not just a descriptive list of the material available, or a set of summaries." Taylor, D.  The literature review: A few tips on conducting it . University of Toronto Health Sciences Writing Centre.

Goals of Literature Reviews

What are the goals of creating a Literature Review?  A literature could be written to accomplish different aims:

• To develop a theory or evaluate an existing theory
• To summarize the historical or existing state of a research topic
• Identify a problem in a field of research 

Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1997). Writing narrative literature reviews .  Review of General Psychology , 1 (3), 311-320.

What kinds of sources require a Literature Review?

• A research paper assigned in a course
• A thesis or dissertation
• A grant proposal
• An article intended for publication in a journal

All these instances require you to collect what has been written about your research topic so that you can demonstrate how your own research sheds new light on the topic.

Types of Literature Reviews

What kinds of literature reviews are written?

Narrative review: The purpose of this type of review is to describe the current state of the research on a specific topic/research and to offer a critical analysis of the literature reviewed. Studies are grouped by research/theoretical categories, and themes and trends, strengths and weakness, and gaps are identified. The review ends with a conclusion section which summarizes the findings regarding the state of the research of the specific study, the gaps identify and if applicable, explains how the author's research will address gaps identify in the review and expand the knowledge on the topic reviewed.

• Example : Predictors and Outcomes of U.S. Quality Maternity Leave: A Review and Conceptual Framework:  10.1177/08948453211037398  

Systematic review : "The authors of a systematic review use a specific procedure to search the research literature, select the studies to include in their review, and critically evaluate the studies they find." (p. 139). Nelson, L. K. (2013). Research in Communication Sciences and Disorders . Plural Publishing.

• Example : The effect of leave policies on increasing fertility: a systematic review:  10.1057/s41599-022-01270-w

Meta-analysis : "Meta-analysis is a method of reviewing research findings in a quantitative fashion by transforming the data from individual studies into what is called an effect size and then pooling and analyzing this information. The basic goal in meta-analysis is to explain why different outcomes have occurred in different studies." (p. 197). Roberts, M. C., & Ilardi, S. S. (2003). Handbook of Research Methods in Clinical Psychology . Blackwell Publishing.

• Example : Employment Instability and Fertility in Europe: A Meta-Analysis:  10.1215/00703370-9164737

Meta-synthesis : "Qualitative meta-synthesis is a type of qualitative study that uses as data the findings from other qualitative studies linked by the same or related topic." (p.312). Zimmer, L. (2006). Qualitative meta-synthesis: A question of dialoguing with texts .  Journal of Advanced Nursing , 53 (3), 311-318.

• Example : Women’s perspectives on career successes and barriers: A qualitative meta-synthesis:  10.1177/05390184221113735

Literature Reviews in the Health Sciences

• UConn Health subject guide on systematic reviews Explanation of the different review types used in health sciences literature as well as tools to help you find the right review type
• << Previous: Getting Started
• Next: How to Pick a Topic >>
• Last Updated: Sep 21, 2022 2:16 PM
• URL: https://guides.lib.uconn.edu/literaturereview

Harvey Cushing/John Hay Whitney Medical Library

• Collections
• Research Help

YSN Doctoral Programs: Steps in Conducting a Literature Review

• Biomedical Databases
• Global (Public Health) Databases
• Soc. Sci., History, and Law Databases
• Grey Literature
• Trials Registers
• Data and Statistics
• Public Policy
• Google Tips
• Recommended Books
• Steps in Conducting a Literature Review

What is a literature review?

A literature review is an integrated analysis -- not just a summary-- of scholarly writings and other relevant evidence related directly to your research question.  That is, it represents a synthesis of the evidence that provides background information on your topic and shows a association between the evidence and your research question.

A literature review may be a stand alone work or the introduction to a larger research paper, depending on the assignment.  Rely heavily on the guidelines your instructor has given you.

Why is it important?

A literature review is important because it:

• Explains the background of research on a topic.
• Demonstrates why a topic is significant to a subject area.
• Discovers relationships between research studies/ideas.
• Identifies major themes, concepts, and researchers on a topic.
• Identifies critical gaps and points of disagreement.
• Discusses further research questions that logically come out of the previous studies.

APA7 Style resources

APA Style Blog - for those harder to find answers

1. Choose a topic. Define your research question.

Your literature review should be guided by your central research question.  The literature represents background and research developments related to a specific research question, interpreted and analyzed by you in a synthesized way.

• Make sure your research question is not too broad or too narrow.  Is it manageable?
• Begin writing down terms that are related to your question. These will be useful for searches later.
• If you have the opportunity, discuss your topic with your professor and your class mates.

2. Decide on the scope of your review

How many studies do you need to look at? How comprehensive should it be? How many years should it cover? 

• This may depend on your assignment.  How many sources does the assignment require?

3. Select the databases you will use to conduct your searches.

Make a list of the databases you will search. 

Where to find databases:

• use the tabs on this guide
• Find other databases in the Nursing Information Resources web page
• More on the Medical Library web page
• ... and more on the Yale University Library web page

4. Conduct your searches to find the evidence. Keep track of your searches.

• Use the key words in your question, as well as synonyms for those words, as terms in your search. Use the database tutorials for help.
• Save the searches in the databases. This saves time when you want to redo, or modify, the searches. It is also helpful to use as a guide is the searches are not finding any useful results.
• Review the abstracts of research studies carefully. This will save you time.
• Use the bibliographies and references of research studies you find to locate others.
• Check with your professor, or a subject expert in the field, if you are missing any key works in the field.
• Ask your librarian for help at any time.
• Use a citation manager, such as EndNote as the repository for your citations. See the EndNote tutorials for help.

Review the literature

Some questions to help you analyze the research:

• What was the research question of the study you are reviewing? What were the authors trying to discover?
• Was the research funded by a source that could influence the findings?
• What were the research methodologies? Analyze its literature review, the samples and variables used, the results, and the conclusions.
• Does the research seem to be complete? Could it have been conducted more soundly? What further questions does it raise?
• If there are conflicting studies, why do you think that is?
• How are the authors viewed in the field? Has this study been cited? If so, how has it been analyzed?

Tips: 

• Review the abstracts carefully.  
• Keep careful notes so that you may track your thought processes during the research process.
• Create a matrix of the studies for easy analysis, and synthesis, across all of the studies.
• << Previous: Recommended Books
• Last Updated: Jun 20, 2024 9:08 AM
• URL: https://guides.library.yale.edu/YSNDoctoral

Purdue Online Writing Lab Purdue OWL® College of Liberal Arts

Writing a Literature Review

Welcome to the Purdue OWL

This page is brought to you by the OWL at Purdue University. When printing this page, you must include the entire legal notice.

Copyright ©1995-2018 by The Writing Lab & The OWL at Purdue and Purdue University. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, reproduced, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed without permission. Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our terms and conditions of fair use.

A literature review is a document or section of a document that collects key sources on a topic and discusses those sources in conversation with each other (also called synthesis ). The lit review is an important genre in many disciplines, not just literature (i.e., the study of works of literature such as novels and plays). When we say “literature review” or refer to “the literature,” we are talking about the research ( scholarship ) in a given field. You will often see the terms “the research,” “the scholarship,” and “the literature” used mostly interchangeably.

Where, when, and why would I write a lit review?

There are a number of different situations where you might write a literature review, each with slightly different expectations; different disciplines, too, have field-specific expectations for what a literature review is and does. For instance, in the humanities, authors might include more overt argumentation and interpretation of source material in their literature reviews, whereas in the sciences, authors are more likely to report study designs and results in their literature reviews; these differences reflect these disciplines’ purposes and conventions in scholarship. You should always look at examples from your own discipline and talk to professors or mentors in your field to be sure you understand your discipline’s conventions, for literature reviews as well as for any other genre.

A literature review can be a part of a research paper or scholarly article, usually falling after the introduction and before the research methods sections. In these cases, the lit review just needs to cover scholarship that is important to the issue you are writing about; sometimes it will also cover key sources that informed your research methodology.

Lit reviews can also be standalone pieces, either as assignments in a class or as publications. In a class, a lit review may be assigned to help students familiarize themselves with a topic and with scholarship in their field, get an idea of the other researchers working on the topic they’re interested in, find gaps in existing research in order to propose new projects, and/or develop a theoretical framework and methodology for later research. As a publication, a lit review usually is meant to help make other scholars’ lives easier by collecting and summarizing, synthesizing, and analyzing existing research on a topic. This can be especially helpful for students or scholars getting into a new research area, or for directing an entire community of scholars toward questions that have not yet been answered.

What are the parts of a lit review?

Most lit reviews use a basic introduction-body-conclusion structure; if your lit review is part of a larger paper, the introduction and conclusion pieces may be just a few sentences while you focus most of your attention on the body. If your lit review is a standalone piece, the introduction and conclusion take up more space and give you a place to discuss your goals, research methods, and conclusions separately from where you discuss the literature itself.

Introduction:

• An introductory paragraph that explains what your working topic and thesis is
• A forecast of key topics or texts that will appear in the review
• Potentially, a description of how you found sources and how you analyzed them for inclusion and discussion in the review (more often found in published, standalone literature reviews than in lit review sections in an article or research paper)
• Summarize and synthesize: Give an overview of the main points of each source and combine them into a coherent whole
• Analyze and interpret: Don’t just paraphrase other researchers – add your own interpretations where possible, discussing the significance of findings in relation to the literature as a whole
• Critically Evaluate: Mention the strengths and weaknesses of your sources
• Write in well-structured paragraphs: Use transition words and topic sentence to draw connections, comparisons, and contrasts.

Conclusion:

• Summarize the key findings you have taken from the literature and emphasize their significance
• Connect it back to your primary research question

How should I organize my lit review?

Lit reviews can take many different organizational patterns depending on what you are trying to accomplish with the review. Here are some examples:

• Chronological : The simplest approach is to trace the development of the topic over time, which helps familiarize the audience with the topic (for instance if you are introducing something that is not commonly known in your field). If you choose this strategy, be careful to avoid simply listing and summarizing sources in order. Try to analyze the patterns, turning points, and key debates that have shaped the direction of the field. Give your interpretation of how and why certain developments occurred (as mentioned previously, this may not be appropriate in your discipline — check with a teacher or mentor if you’re unsure).
• Thematic : If you have found some recurring central themes that you will continue working with throughout your piece, you can organize your literature review into subsections that address different aspects of the topic. For example, if you are reviewing literature about women and religion, key themes can include the role of women in churches and the religious attitude towards women.
• Qualitative versus quantitative research
• Empirical versus theoretical scholarship
• Divide the research by sociological, historical, or cultural sources
• Theoretical : In many humanities articles, the literature review is the foundation for the theoretical framework. You can use it to discuss various theories, models, and definitions of key concepts. You can argue for the relevance of a specific theoretical approach or combine various theorical concepts to create a framework for your research.

What are some strategies or tips I can use while writing my lit review?

Any lit review is only as good as the research it discusses; make sure your sources are well-chosen and your research is thorough. Don’t be afraid to do more research if you discover a new thread as you’re writing. More info on the research process is available in our "Conducting Research" resources .

As you’re doing your research, create an annotated bibliography ( see our page on the this type of document ). Much of the information used in an annotated bibliography can be used also in a literature review, so you’ll be not only partially drafting your lit review as you research, but also developing your sense of the larger conversation going on among scholars, professionals, and any other stakeholders in your topic.

Usually you will need to synthesize research rather than just summarizing it. This means drawing connections between sources to create a picture of the scholarly conversation on a topic over time. Many student writers struggle to synthesize because they feel they don’t have anything to add to the scholars they are citing; here are some strategies to help you:

• It often helps to remember that the point of these kinds of syntheses is to show your readers how you understand your research, to help them read the rest of your paper.
• Writing teachers often say synthesis is like hosting a dinner party: imagine all your sources are together in a room, discussing your topic. What are they saying to each other?
• Look at the in-text citations in each paragraph. Are you citing just one source for each paragraph? This usually indicates summary only. When you have multiple sources cited in a paragraph, you are more likely to be synthesizing them (not always, but often
• Read more about synthesis here.

The most interesting literature reviews are often written as arguments (again, as mentioned at the beginning of the page, this is discipline-specific and doesn’t work for all situations). Often, the literature review is where you can establish your research as filling a particular gap or as relevant in a particular way. You have some chance to do this in your introduction in an article, but the literature review section gives a more extended opportunity to establish the conversation in the way you would like your readers to see it. You can choose the intellectual lineage you would like to be part of and whose definitions matter most to your thinking (mostly humanities-specific, but this goes for sciences as well). In addressing these points, you argue for your place in the conversation, which tends to make the lit review more compelling than a simple reporting of other sources.

Research Methods: Literature Reviews

• Annotated Bibliographies
• Literature Reviews
• Scoping Reviews
• Systematic Reviews
• Scholarship of Teaching and Learning
• Persuasive Arguments
• Subject Specific Methodology

A literature review involves researching, reading, analyzing, evaluating, and summarizing scholarly literature (typically journals and articles) about a specific topic. The results of a literature review may be an entire report or article OR may be part of a article, thesis, dissertation, or grant proposal. A literature review helps the author learn about the history and nature of their topic, and identify research gaps and problems.

Steps & Elements

Problem formulation

• Determine your topic and its components by asking a question
• Research: locate literature related to your topic to identify the gap(s) that can be addressed
• Read: read the articles or other sources of information
• Analyze: assess the findings for relevancy
• Evaluating: determine how the article are relevant to your research and what are the key findings
• Synthesis: write about the key findings and how it is relevant to your research

Elements of a Literature Review

• Summarize subject, issue or theory under consideration, along with objectives of the review
• Divide works under review into categories (e.g. those in support of a particular position, those against, those offering alternative theories entirely)
• Explain how each work is similar to and how it varies from the others
• Conclude which pieces are best considered in their argument, are most convincing of their opinions, and make the greatest contribution to the understanding and development of an area of research

Writing a Literature Review Resources

• How to Write a Literature Review From the Wesleyan University Library
• Write a Literature Review From the University of California Santa Cruz Library. A Brief overview of a literature review, includes a list of stages for writing a lit review.
• Literature Reviews From the University of North Carolina Writing Center. Detailed information about writing a literature review.
• Undertaking a literature review: a step-by-step approach Cronin, P., Ryan, F., & Coughan, M. (2008). Undertaking a literature review: A step-by-step approach. British Journal of Nursing, 17(1), p.38-43

Literature Review Tutorial

• << Previous: Annotated Bibliographies
• Next: Scoping Reviews >>
• Last Updated: Jul 8, 2024 3:13 PM
• URL: https://guides.auraria.edu/researchmethods

1100 Lawrence Street Denver, CO 80204 303-315-7700 Ask Us Directions

Conduct a literature review

What is a literature review.

A literature review is a summary of the published work in a field of study. This can be a section of a larger paper or article, or can be the focus of an entire paper. Literature reviews show that you have examined the breadth of knowledge and can justify your thesis or research questions. They are also valuable tools for other researchers who need to find a summary of that field of knowledge.

Unlike an annotated bibliography, which is a list of sources with short descriptions, a literature review synthesizes sources into a summary that has a thesis or statement of purpose—stated or implied—at its core.

How do I write a literature review?

Step 1: define your research scope.

• What is the specific research question that your literature review helps to define?
• Are there a maximum or minimum number of sources that your review should include?

Ask us if you have questions about refining your topic, search methods, writing tips, or citation management.

Step 2: Identify the literature

Start by searching broadly. Literature for your review will typically be acquired through scholarly books, journal articles, and/or dissertations. Develop an understanding of what is out there, what terms are accurate and helpful, etc., and keep track of all of it with citation management tools . If you need help figuring out key terms and where to search, ask us .

Use citation searching to track how scholars interact with, and build upon, previous research:

• Mine the references cited section of each relevant source for additional key sources
• Use Google Scholar or Scopus to find other sources that have cited a particular work

Step 3: Critically analyze the literature

Key to your literature review is a critical analysis of the literature collected around your topic. The analysis will explore relationships, major themes, and any critical gaps in the research expressed in the work. Read and summarize each source with an eye toward analyzing authority, currency, coverage, methodology, and relationship to other works. The University of Toronto's Writing Center provides a comprehensive list of questions you can use to analyze your sources.

Step 4: Categorize your resources

Divide the available resources that pertain to your research into categories reflecting their roles in addressing your research question. Possible ways to categorize resources include organization by:

• methodology
• theoretical/philosophical approach

Regardless of the division, each category should be accompanied by thorough discussions and explanations of strengths and weaknesses, value to the overall survey, and comparisons with similar sources. You may have enough resources when:

• You've used multiple databases and other resources (web portals, repositories, etc.) to get a variety of perspectives on the research topic.
• The same citations are showing up in a variety of databases.

Additional resources

Undergraduate student resources.

• Literature Review Handout (University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill)
• Learn how to write a review of literature (University of Wisconsin-Madison)

Graduate student and faculty resources

• Information Research Strategies (University of Arizona)
• Literature Reviews: An Overview for Graduate Students (NC State University)
• Oliver, P. (2012). Succeeding with Your Literature Review: A Handbook for Students [ebook]
• Machi, L. A. & McEvoy, B. T. (2016). The Literature Review: Six Steps to Success [ebook]
• Graustein, J. S. (2012). How to Write an Exceptional Thesis or Dissertation: A Step-by-Step Guide from Proposal to Successful Defense [ebook]
• Thomas, R. M. & Brubaker, D. L. (2008). Theses and Dissertations: A Guide to Planning, Research, and Writing

Literature review sources

Sources for literature review can be divided into three categories as illustrated in table below. In your dissertation you will need to use all three categories of literature review sources:

Sources for literature review and examples

Generally, your literature review should integrate a wide range of sources such as:

• Books . Textbooks remain as the most important source to find models and theories related to the research area. Research the most respected authorities in your selected research area and find the latest editions of books authored by them. For example, in the area of marketing the most notable authors include Philip Kotler, Seth Godin, Malcolm Gladwell, Emanuel Rosen and others.
• Magazines . Industry-specific magazines are usually rich in scholarly articles and they can be effective source to learn about the latest trends and developments in the research area. Reading industry magazines can be the most enjoyable part of the literature review, assuming that your selected research area represents an area of your personal and professional interests, which should be the case anyways.
• Newspapers can be referred to as the main source of up-to-date news about the latest events related to the research area. However, the proportion of the use of newspapers in literature review is recommended to be less compared to alternative sources of secondary data such as books and magazines. This is due to the fact that newspaper articles mainly lack depth of analyses and discussions.
• Online articles . You can find online versions of all of the above sources. However, note that the levels of reliability of online articles can be highly compromised depending on the source due to the high levels of ease with which articles can be published online. Opinions offered in a wide range of online discussion blogs cannot be usually used in literature review. Similarly, dissertation assessors are not keen to appreciate references to a wide range of blogs, unless articles in these blogs are authored by respected authorities in the research area.

Your secondary data sources may comprise certain amount of grey literature as well. The term grey literature refers to type of literature produced by government, academics, business and industry in print and electronic formats, which is not controlled by commercial publishers. It is called ‘grey’ because the status of the information in grey literature is not certain. In other words, any publication that has not been peer reviewed for publication is grey literature.

The necessity to use grey literature arises when there is no enough peer reviewed publications are available for the subject of your study.

John Dudovskiy

• Search Menu
• Sign in through your institution
• Advance articles
• Themed Collections
• Editor's Choice
• Ilona Kickbusch Award
• Supplements
• Author Guidelines
• Submission Online
• Open Access Option
• Self-Archiving Policy
• About Health Promotion International
• Editorial Board
• Advertising and Corporate Services
• Journals on Oxford Academic
• Books on Oxford Academic

Article Contents

Introduction, challenging some common methodological assumptions about online qualitative surveys, ten practical tips for designing, implementing and analysing online qualitative surveys, acknowledgements, conflict of interest statement, data availability, ethical approval.

• < Previous

Methodological and practical guidance for designing and conducting online qualitative surveys in public health

• Article contents
• Figures & tables
• Supplementary Data

Samantha L Thomas, Hannah Pitt, Simone McCarthy, Grace Arnot, Marita Hennessy, Methodological and practical guidance for designing and conducting online qualitative surveys in public health, Health Promotion International , Volume 39, Issue 3, June 2024, daae061, https://doi.org/10.1093/heapro/daae061

• Permissions Icon Permissions

Online qualitative surveys—those surveys that prioritise qualitative questions and interpretivist values—have rich potential for researchers, particularly in new or emerging areas of public health. However, there is limited discussion about the practical development and methodological implications of such surveys, particularly for public health researchers. This poses challenges for researchers, funders, ethics committees, and peer reviewers in assessing the rigour and robustness of such research, and in deciding the appropriateness of the method for answering different research questions. Drawing and extending on the work of other researchers, as well as our own experiences of conducting online qualitative surveys with young people and adults, we describe the processes associated with developing and implementing online qualitative surveys and writing up online qualitative survey data. We provide practical examples and lessons learned about question development, the importance of rigorous piloting strategies, use of novel techniques to prompt detailed responses from participants, and decisions that are made about data preparation and interpretation. We consider reviewer comments, and some ethical considerations of this type of qualitative research for both participants and researchers. We provide a range of practical strategies to improve trustworthiness in decision-making and data interpretation—including the importance of using theory. Rigorous online qualitative surveys that are grounded in qualitative interpretivist values offer a range of unique benefits for public health researchers, knowledge users, and research participants.

Public health researchers are increasingly using online qualitative surveys.

There is still limited practical and methodological information about the design and implementation of these studies.

Building on Braun and Clarke (2013) , Terry and Braun (2017) and Braun et al . (2021) , we reflect on the methodological and practical lessons we have learnt from our own experience with conducting online qualitative surveys.

We provide guidance and practical examples about the design, implementation and analysis processes.

We argue that online qualitative surveys have rich potential for public health researchers and can be an empowering and engaging way to include diverse populations in qualitative research.

Public health researchers mostly engage in experiential (interpretive) qualitative approaches ( Braun and Clarke, 2013 ). These approaches are ‘centred on the exploration of participants’ subjective experiences and sense-making’ [( Braun and Clarke, 2021c ), p. 39]. Given the strong focus in public health on social justice, power and inequality, researchers proactively use the findings from these qualitative studies—often in collaboration with lived experience experts and others who are impacted by key decisions ( Reed et al ., 2024 )—to advocate for changes to public health policy and practice. There is also an important level of theoretical, methodological and empirical reflection that is part of the public health researcher’s role. For example, as qualitative researchers actively construct and interpret meaning from data, they constantly challenge their assumptions, their way of knowing and their way of ‘doing’ research ( Braun and Clarke, 2024 ). This reflexive practice also includes considering how to develop more inclusive opportunities for people to participate in research and to share their opinions and experiences about the issues that matter to them.

While in-depth interviews and focus groups provide rich and detailed narratives that are central to understanding people’s lives, these forms of data collection may sometimes create practical barriers for both researchers and participants. For example, they can be time consuming, and the power dynamics associated with face-to-face interviews (even in online settings) may make them less accessible for groups that are marginalized or stigmatized ( Edwards and Holland, 2020 ). While some population subgroups (and contexts) may suit (or require) face-to-face qualitative data collection approaches, others may lend themselves to different forms of data collection. Young people, for example, may be keen to be civically involved in research about the issues that matter to them, such as the climate crisis, but they may find it more convenient and comfortable using anonymized digital technologies to do so ( Arnot et al ., 2024b ). As such, part of our reflexive practice as public health researchers must be to explore, and be open to, a range of qualitative methodological approaches that could be more convenient, less intimidating and more engaging for a diverse range of population subgroups. This includes thinking about pragmatic ways of operationalizing qualitative data collection methods. How can we develop methods and engagement strategies that enable us to gain insights from a diverse range of participants about new issues or phenomenon that may pose threats to public health, or look at existing issues in new ways?

Advancements in online data collection methods have also created new options for researchers and participants about how they can be involved in qualitative studies ( Hensen et al ., 2021 ; Chen, 2023 ; Fan et al ., 2024 ). Online qualitative surveys—those surveys that prioritize qualitative values and questions—have rich potential for qualitative researchers. Braun and Clarke (2013 , p. 135) state that qualitative surveys:

…consist of a series of open-ended questions about a topic, and participants type or hand-write their responses to each question. They are self-administered; a researcher-administered qualitative survey would basically be an interview.

While these types of studies are increasingly utilized in public health, researchers have highlighted that there is still relatively limited discussion about the methodological and practical implications of these surveys ( Braun and Clarke, 2013 ; Terry and Braun, 2017 ; Braun et al ., 2021 ). This poses challenges for qualitative public health researchers, funders, ethics committees and peer reviewers in assessing the purpose, rigour and contribution of such research, and in deciding the appropriateness of the method for answering different research questions.

Using examples from online qualitative surveys that we have been involved in, this article discusses a range of methodological and practical lessons learnt from developing, implementing and analysing data from these types of surveys. While we do not claim to have all the answers, we aim to develop and extend on the methodological and practical guidance from Braun and Clarke (2013) , Terry and Braun (2017) and Braun et al . (2021) about the potential for online qualitative surveys. This includes how they can provide a rigorous ‘wide-angle picture’ [( Toerien and Wilkinson, 2004 ), p. 70] from a diverse range of participants about contemporary public health phenomena.

Figure 1 aims to develop and extend on the key points made by Braun and Clarke (2013) , Terry and Braun (2017) and Braun et al . (2021) , which provide the methodological and empirical foundation for our article.

: Methodological considerations in conducting online qualitative surveys.

Harnessing interpretivist approaches and qualitative values in online qualitative surveys

Online qualitative surveys take many forms. They may be fully qualitative or qualitative dominant—mostly qualitative with some quantitative questions ( Terry and Braun, 2017 ). There are also many different ways of conducting these studies—from using a smaller number of questions that engage specific population groups or knowledge users in understanding detailed experiences  ( Hennessy and O’Donoghue, 2024 ), to a larger number of questions (which may use market research panel providers to recruit participants), that seek broader opinions and attitudes about public health issues ( Marko et al ., 2022a ; McCarthy et al ., 2023 ; Arnot et al ., 2024a ). However, based on our experiences of applying for grant funding and conducting, publishing and presenting these studies, there are still clear misconceptions and uncertainties about these types of  surveys.

One of the concerns raised about online qualitative surveys is how they are situated within broader qualitative values and approaches. This includes whether they can provide empirically innovative, rigorous, rich and theoretically grounded qualitative contributions to knowledge. Our experience is that online qualitative surveys have the most potential when they harness the values of interpretivist ‘Big Q’ approaches to collect information from a diverse range of participants about their experiences, opinions and practices ( Braun et al ., 2021 ). The distinction between positivist (small q) and interpretivist (Big Q) approaches to online qualitative surveys is an important one that requires some initial methodological reflection, particularly in considering the (largely unhelpful) critiques that are made about the rigour and usefulness of these surveys. These critiques often overlook the theoretical underpinnings and qualitative values inherent in such surveys. For example, while there may be a tendency to think of surveys and survey data as atheoretical and descriptive, the use of theory is central in informing online qualitative surveys. For example, Varpio and Ellaway (2021 , p. 343) explain that theory can ‘offer explanations and detailed premises that we can wrestle with, agree with, disagree with, reject and/or accept’. This includes the research design, the approach to data collection and analysis, the interpretation of findings and the conclusions that are drawn. Theory is also important in helping researchers to engage in reflexive practice. The use of theory is essential in progressing online qualitative surveys beyond description and towards in-depth interpretation and explanations—thus facilitating a deeper understanding of the studied phenomenon ( Collins and Stockton, 2018 ; Jamie and Rathbone, 2022 ).

Considering the assumptions that online qualitative surveys can only collect ‘thin’ data

The main assumptions about online qualitative surveys are that they can only collect ‘thin’ textual data, and that they are not flexible enough as a data collection tool for researchers to prompt or ask follow-up questions or to co-create detailed and rich data with participants ( Braun and Clarke, 2013 ; Terry and Clarke, 2017 ; Braun et al ., 2021 ). While we acknowledge that the type of data that is collected in these types of studies is different from those in in-depth interview studies, these surveys may be a more accessible and engaging way to collect rich insights from a diverse range of participants who may otherwise not participate in qualitative research ( Braun and Clarke, 2013 ; Terry and Braun, 2017 ; Braun et al ., 2021 ). Despite this, peer reviewers can question the depth of information that may be collected in these studies. Assumptions about large but ‘thin’ datasets may also mean that researchers, funders and reviewers take (and perhaps expect) a more positivist approach to the design and analytical processes associated with these surveys. For example, the multiple topics and questions, larger sample sizes, and the generally smaller textual responses that online qualitative surveys generate may lead researchers to approach these surveys using more descriptive and atheoretical paradigms. This approach may focus on ‘measuring’ phenomena, using variables, developing thinner analytical description and adding numerical values to the number of responses for different categories or themes.

We have found that assumptions can also impact the review processes associated with these types of studies, receiving critiques from those with both positivist and interpretivist positions. Positivist critiques focus on matters associated with whether the samples are ‘representative’, and the flaws associated with ‘self-selecting convenience’ samples. Critiques from interpretivist colleagues question why such large sample sizes are needed for qualitative studies, seeing surveys as a less rigorous method for gaining rich and meaningful data. For example, we have had reviewers query the scope and depth of the analysis of the data that we present from these studies because they are concerned that the type of data collected lacks depth and does not fully contextualize and explain how participants think about issues. We have also had reviewers request that we should return to the study to collect quantitative data to supplement the qualitative findings of the survey. They also question how ‘representative’ the samples are of population groups. These comments, of course, are not unique to online qualitative surveys but do highlight the difficulty that reviewers may have in placing and situating these types of studies in broader qualitative approaches. With this in mind, we have also found that some reviewers can ask for additional information to justify both the use of online qualitative surveys and why we have chosen these over other qualitative approaches. For example, reviewers have asked us to justify why we have chosen an online qualitative survey and also to explain what we may have missed out on by not conducting in-depth interviews or quantitative or mixed methods surveys instead.

Requests for ‘numbers’ and ‘strategies to minimize bias’

While there is now a general understanding that attributing ‘numbers’ to qualitative data is largely unhelpful and inappropriate ( Chowdhury, 2015 ), there may be expectations that the larger sample sizes associated with online qualitative surveys enable researchers to provide numerical indicators of data. Rather than focusing on the ‘artfully interpretive’ techniques used to analyse and construct themes from the data ( Finlay, 2021 ), we have found that reviewers often ask us to provide numerical information about how many people provided different responses to different questions (or constructed themes), and the number at which ‘saturation’ was determined. Reviewer feedback that we have received about analytical processes has asked for detailed explanations about why attempts to ‘minimize bias’ (including calculations of inter-rater reliability and replicability of data quality) were not used. This demonstrates that peer reviewers may misinterpret the interpretivist values that guide online qualitative surveys, asking for information that is essentially ‘meaningless’ in qualitative paradigms in which researchers’ subjectivity ‘sculpts’ the knowledge that is produced ( Braun and Clarke, 2021a ).

The benefits and limitations of online qualitative surveys for participants, researchers and knowledge users

As well as a ‘wide-angle picture’ [( Toerien and Wilkinson, 2004 ), p. 70] on phenomenon, online qualitative surveys can also: (i) generate both rich and focused data about perceptions and practices, and (ii) have multiple participatory and practical advantages—including helping to overcome barriers to research participation ( Braun and Clarke, 2013 ; Terry and Braun, 2017 ; Braun et al ., 2021 ). For researchers , online qualitative surveys can be a more cost-effective alternative ( Braun and Clarke, 2013 ; Terry and Braun, 2017 )—they are generally more time-efficient and less labour-intensive (particularly if working with market research companies to recruit panels). They are also able to reach a broad range of participants—such as those who are geographically dispersed ( Braun and Clarke, 2013 ; Terry and Braun, 2017 ), and those who may not have internet connectivity that is reliable enough to complete online interviews (a common issue for individuals living in regional or rural settings) ( de Villiers et al ., 2022 ). We are also more able to engage young people in qualitative research through online surveys, perhaps partly due to extensive panel company databases but also because they may be a more accessible and familiar way for young people to participate in research. The ability to quickly investigate new public health threats from the perspective of lived experience can also provide important information for researchers, providing justification for new areas of research focus, including setting agendas and advocating for the need for funding (or policy attention). Collecting data from a diverse range of participants—including from those who hold views that we may see as less ‘politically acceptable’, or inconsistent with our own public health reasoning about health and equity—is important in situating and contextualizing community attitudes towards particular issues.

For participants , benefits include having a degree of autonomy and control over their participation, including completing the survey at a time and place that suits them, and the anonymous nature of participation (that may be helpful for people from highly stigmatized groups). Participants can take time to reflect on their responses or complete the survey, and may feel more able to ‘talk back’ to the researcher about the framing of questions or the purpose of the research ( Braun et al ., 2021 ). We would also add that a benefit of these types of studies is that participants can also drop out of the study easily if the survey does not interest them or meet their expectations—something that we think might be more onerous or uncomfortable for participants in an interview or focus group.

For knowledge users, including advocates, service providers and decision-makers, qualitative research provides an important form of evidence, and the ‘wide-angle picture' [( Toerien and Wilkinson, 2004 ), p. 70] on issues from a diverse range of individuals in a community or population can be a powerful advocacy tool. Online qualitative surveys can also provide rapid insights into how changes to policy and practice may impact population subgroups in different ways.

There are, of course, some limitations associated with online qualitative surveys ( Braun et al ., 2021 ; Marko et al ., 2022b ). For example, there is no ability to engage individuals in a ‘traditional’ conversation or to prompt or probe meaning in the interactive ways that we are familiar with in interview studies. There is less ability to refine the questions that we ask participants in an iterative way throughout a study based on participant responses (particularly when working with market research panel companies). There may also be barriers associated with written literacy, access to digital technologies and stable internet connections ( Braun et al ., 2021 ). They may also not be the most suitable for individuals who have different ways of ‘knowing, being and doing’ qualitative research—including Indigenous populations [( Kennedy et al ., 2022 ), p. 1]. All of these factors should be taken into consideration when deciding whether online qualitative surveys are an appropriate way of collecting data. Finally, while these types of surveys can collect data quickly ( Marko et al ., 2022b ), there can also be additional decision-making processes related to data preparation and inclusion that can be time-consuming.

There are a range of practical considerations that can improve the rigour, trustworthiness and quality of online qualitative survey data. Again, developing and expanding on ( Braun and Clarke, 2013 ; Terry and Braun, 2017 ; Braun et al ., 2021 ), Figure 2 gives an overview of some key practical considerations associated with the design, implementation and analysis of these surveys. We would also note that before starting your survey design, you should be aware that people may use different types of technology to complete the survey, and in different spaces. For example, we cannot assume that people will be sitting in front of a computer or laptop at home or in the office, with people more likely to complete surveys on a mobile phone, perhaps on a train or bus on the way to work or school.

: Top ten practical tips for conducting online qualitative surveys.

Survey design

Creating an appropriate and accessible structure

The first step in designing an online qualitative survey is to plan the structure of your survey. This step is important because the structure influences the way that participants interact with and participate through the survey. The survey structure helps to create an ‘environment’ that helps participants to share their perspectives, prompt their views and develop their ideas ( Braun and Clarke, 2013 ; Terry and Braun, 2017 ). Similar to an interview study, the structure of the survey guides participants from one set of questions (and topics) to the next. It is important to consider the ordering of topics to enable participants to complete a survey that has a logical flow, introduces participants to concepts and allows them to develop their depth of responses.

Before participants start the survey, we provide a clear and simple lay language summary of the survey. Because many individuals will be familiar with completing quantitative surveys, we include a welcoming statement and reiterate the qualitative nature of the survey, stating that their answers can be about their own experiences:

Thank you for agreeing to take part in this survey about [topic] . This survey involves writing responses to questions rather than checking boxes.

We then clearly reiterate the purpose of the survey, providing a short description of the topic that we are investigating. We state that we do not seek to collect any data that is identifiable, that we are interested in participants perspectives, that there are no right or wrong answers, and that participants can withdraw from the survey at any time without giving a reason.

Similar to Braun et al . (2021) , we start our surveys with questions about demographic and related characteristics (which we often call ‘ participant/general characteristics ’). These can be discrete choice questions, but can also utilize open text—for example, in relation to gender identity. We have found that there is always a temptation with surveys to ask many questions about the demographic characteristics of participants. However, we caution that too many questions can be intrusive for participants and can take away valuable time from open-text questions, which are the core focus of the survey. We recommend asking participant characteristic and demographic questions that situate and contextualize the sample ( Elliott et al ., 1999 ).

We generally start the open-text sections of these surveys by asking broad introductory questions about the topic. This might include questions such as: ‘Please describe the main reasons you drink alcohol ’, and ‘W hat do you think are the main impacts of climate change on the world? ’ We have found that these types of questions get participants used to responding to open-text questions relevant to the study’s research questions and aims. For each new topic of investigation (which are based on our theoretical concepts and overall study aims and research questions), we provide a short explanation about what we will ask participants. We also use tools and text to signpost participant progress through the survey. This can be a valuable way to avoid high attrition rates where participants exit the survey because they are getting fatigued and are unclear when the survey will end:

Great! We are just over half-way through the survey.

We ask more detailed questions that are more aligned with our theoretical concepts in the middle of the survey. For example, we may start with broad questions about a harmful industry and their products (such as gambling, vaping or alcohol) and then in the middle of the survey ask more detailed questions about the commercial determinants of health and the specific tactics that these industries use (for example, about product design, political tactics, public relations strategies or how these practices may influence health and equity). In relation to these more complex questions, it is particularly important that we reiterate that there are no wrong answers and try to include encouraging text throughout the survey:

There are no right or wrong answers—we are curious to hear your opinions .

We always try to end the survey on a positive. While these types of questions depend on the study, we try to ask questions which enable participants to reflect on what could be done to address or improve an issue. This might include their attitudes about policy, or what they would say to those in positions of power:

What do you think should be done to protect young people from sports betting advertising on social media? If there was one thing that could be done to prevent young people from being exposed to the risks associated with alcohol, cigarettes, vaping, or gambling, what would it be? If you could say one thing to politicians about climate change, what would it be?

Finally, we ask participants if there is anything we have missed or if they have anything else to add, sometimes referred to as a ‘clean-up’ question ( Braun and Clarke, 2013 ). The following provides a few examples of how we have framed these questions in some of our studies:

Is there anything you would like to say about alcohol, cigarettes, vaping, and gambling products that we have not covered? Is there anything we haven’t asked you about the advertising of alcohol to women that you would like us to know?

Considering the impact of the length of the survey on responses

The length of the survey (both the number of questions and the time it takes an individual to complete the survey) is guided by a range of methodological and practical considerations and will vary between studies ( Braun and Clarke, 2013 ). Many factors will influence completion times. We try to give individuals a guide at the start of the survey about how long we think it will take to complete the survey (for example, between 20 and 30 minutes). We highlight that it may take people a little longer or shorter and that people are able to leave their browser open or save the survey and come back to finish it later. For our first few online qualitative surveys, we found that we asked lots of questions because we felt less in control of being able to prompt or ask follow-up questions from participants. However, we have learned that less is more! Asking too many questions may lead to more survey dropouts, and may significantly reduce the textual quality of the information that you receive from participants ( Braun and Clarke, 2013 ; Terry and Clarke, 2017 ). This includes considering how the survey questions might lead to repetition, which may be annoying for participants, leading to responses such as ‘like I’ve already said’ , ‘I’ve already answered that’ or ‘see above’ .

Providing clear and simple guidance

When designing an online qualitative survey, we try to think of ways to make participation in the survey engaging. We do not want individuals to feel that we are ‘mining’ them for data. Rather we want to demonstrate that we are genuinely interested in their perspectives and views. We use a range of mechanisms to do this. Because there is no opportunity to verbally explain or clarify concepts to participants, there is a particular need to ensure that the language used is clear and accessible ( Braun and Clarke, 2013 ; Terry and Clarke, 2017 ). If language or concepts are complex, you are more likely to receive ‘I don’t know’ responses to your questions. We need to remember that participants have a range of written and comprehension skills, and inclusive and accessible language is important. We also never try to assume a level of knowledge about an issue (unless we have specifically asked for participants who are aware and engaged in an issue—such as women who drink alcohol) ( Pitt et al ., 2023 ). This includes avoiding highly technical or academic language and not making assumptions that the individuals completing the survey will understand concepts in the same way that researchers do ( Braun and Clarke, 2013 ). Clearly explaining concepts or using text or images to prompt memories can help to overcome this:

Some big corporations (such as the tobacco, vaping, alcohol, junk food, or gambling industries) sponsor women's sporting teams or clubs, or other events. You might see sponsor logos on sporting uniforms, or at sporting grounds, or sponsoring a concert or arts event.

At all times, we try to centre the language that we use with the population from which we are seeking responses. Advisory groups can be particularly helpful in framing language for different population subgroups. We often use colloquial language, even if it might not be seen as the ‘correct’ academic language or terminology. Where possible, we also try to define theoretical concepts in a clear and easy to understand way. For example, in our study investigating parent perceptions of the impact of harmful products on young people, we tried to clearly define ‘normalization’:

In this section we ask you about some of the perceived health impacts of the above products on young people. We also ask you about the normalisation of these products for young people. When we talk about normalisation, we are thinking about the range of factors that might make these products more acceptable for young people to use. These factors might include individual factors, such as young people being attracted to risk, the influence of family or peers, the accessibility and availability of these products, or the way the industry advertises and promotes these products.

Using innovative approaches to improve accessibility and prompt responses

Online qualitative surveys can include features beyond traditional question-and-answer formats ( Braun and Clarke, 2013 ; Terry and Braun, 2017 ). For example, we often use a range of photo elicitation techniques (using images or videos) to make surveys more accessible to participate in, address different levels of literacy, and overcome the assumption that we are not able to ‘prompt’ responses. These types of visual methodologies enable a collaborative and creative research experience by asking the participant to reflect on aspects of the visual materials, such as symbolic representations, and discuss these in relation to the research objectives ( Glaw et al ., 2017 ). The combination of visual images and clear descriptions helps to provide a focus for responses about different issues, as well as prompting nuanced information such as participant memories and emotions ( Glaw et al ., 2017 ). We use different types of visuals in our studies, such as photographs (including of the public health issues we’re investigating); screenshots from websites and social media posts (including newspaper headlines) and videos (including short videos from social media sites such as TikTok) ( Arnot et al ., 2024b ). For example, when talking about government responses to the climate crisis, we used a photograph of former Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison holding a piece of coal in the Australian parliament to prompt participants’ thinking about the government’s relationship with fossil fuels and to provide a focal point for their answer. However, we would caution against using any images that may be confronting for participants or deliberately provocative. The purpose of using visuals must always be in the interests of the participants—to clarify, prompt and reflect on concepts. Ethics committees should carefully review the images used in surveys to ensure that they have a clear purpose and are unlikely to cause any discomfort.

Survey implementation

Thinking carefully about your criteria for recruitment

Determining the sample size of online qualitative studies is not an exact science. The sample sizes for recent studies have ranged from n = 46 in a study about pregnancy loss ( Hennessy and O’Donoghue, 2024 ), to n = 511 in a study with young people about the climate crisis ( Arnot et al ., 2023b ). We follow ‘rules of thumb’ [( Braun and Clarke, 2021b ), p. 211] which try to balance the needs of the research and data richness with key practical considerations (such as funding and time constraints), funder expectations, discipline-specific norms and our knowledge and experience of designing and implementing online qualitative surveys. However, we have found that peer reviewers expect much more justification of sample sizes than they do for other types of qualitative research. Robust justification of sample sizes are often needed to prevent any ‘concerns’ that reviewers may raise. Our response to these reviews often reiterates that our focus (as with all qualitative research) is not to produce a ‘generalisable’ or ‘representative’ sample but to recruit participants who will help to provide ‘rich, complex and textured data’ [( Terry and Braun, 2017 ), p. 15] about an issue. Instead of focusing on data saturation, a contested concept which is incongruent with reflexive thematic analysis in particular ( Braun and Clarke, 2021b ), we find it useful to consider information power to determine the sample size for these surveys ( Malterud et al ., 2016 ). Information power prioritizes the adequacy, quality and variability of the data collected over the number of participants.

Recruitment for online qualitative surveys can be influenced by a range of factors. Monetary and time constraints will impact the size and, if using market research company panels, the specificity of participant quotas. Recruitment strategies must be developed to ensure that the data provides enough information to answer the research questions of the study. For our research purposes, we often try to ensure that participants with a range of socio-demographic characteristics are invited to participate in the sample. We set soft quotas for age, gender and geographic location to ensure some diversity. We have found that some population subgroups may also be recruited more easily than others—although this may depend on the topic of the survey. For example, we have found that quotas for women and those living in metropolitan areas may fill more quickly. In these scenarios, the research team must weigh up the timelines associated with recruitment and data collection (e.g. How long do we want to run data collection for? How much of our budget can be spent on achieving a more equally split sample? Are quotas necessary?) versus the purpose and goals of the research (i.e. to generate ideas rather than data representativeness), and the study-specific aims and research questions.

There are, of course, concerns about not being able to ‘see’ the people that are completing these surveys. There is an increasing focus in the academic literature on ‘false’ respondents, particularly in quantitative online surveys ( Levi et al ., 2021 ; Wang et al ., 2023 ). This will be an important ongoing discussion for qualitative researchers, and we do not claim to have the answers for how to overcome these issues. For example, some individuals may say that they meet the inclusion criteria to access the survey, while others may not understand or misinterpret the inclusion criteria. There is also a level of discomfort about who and how we judge who may be a ‘legitimate’ participant or not. However, we can talk practically about some of the strategies that we use to ensure the rigour of data. For example, we find that screening questions can provide a ‘double-check’ in relation to inclusion criteria and can also help with ensuring that there is consistency between the information an individual provides about how they meet the inclusion criteria and subsequent responses. For example, in a recent survey of parents of young people, a participant stated that they were 18 years old and were a parent to a 16-year-old and 15-year-old. Their overall responses were inconsistent with being a parent of children these ages. Similarly, in our gambling studies, people may tick that they have gambled in the last year but then in subsequent questions say they have not gambled at all. This highlights the importance of checking data across all questions, although it should be noted that time and cost constraints associated with comprehensively scanning the data for such responses are not always feasible and can result in overlooking these participants.

Ensuring that there are strategies to create agency and engage participants in the research

One of the benefits of online qualitative surveys compared to traditional quantitative surveys is the scope for participants to explain their answers and to disagree with the research team’s position. An indication that participants are feeling able to do this is when they are asked for any additional comments at the end of the survey. For example, in a survey about women’s attitudes towards alcohol marketing, the following participant concluded the survey by writing: ‘I think you have covered everything. I think that you need to stop shaming women for having fun’. Other participants demonstrate their engagement and interest in the survey by reaffirming the perspectives they have shared throughout the survey. For example, in a study with young people on climate, participants responded at the end that ‘it’s one of the few things I actually care about’ , while another commented on the quality of the survey questions, stating, ‘I think this survey did a great job with probing questions to prompt all the thoughts I have on it’ .

We also think that online qualitative surveys may lead to less social desirability in participants’ responses. Participants seem less wary about communicating less politically correct opinions than they may do in a face-to-face interview. For example, at times, participants communicate attitudes that may not align with public health values (e.g. supporting personal responsibility, anti-nanny state, and neoliberal ideologies of health and wellbeing), that we rarely see communicated to us in in-depth interview or focus group studies. We would argue that these perspectives are valuable for public health researchers because they capture a different community voice that may not otherwise be represented in research. This may show where there is a lack of support for health interventions and policy reforms and may indicate where further awareness-raising needs to occur. These types of responses also contribute to reflexive practice by challenging our assumptions and positions about how we think people should think or feel about responses to particular public health issues. Examples of such responses from our surveys include:

"Like I have already said, if you try to hide it you will only make it more attractive. This nanny-state attitude of the elite drives me crazy. People must be allowed to decide for themselves."

Ethical issues for participants and researchers

Researchers should also be aware that some of the ethical issues associated with online qualitative surveys may be different from those in in-depth interviews—and it is important that these are explained in any ethical consideration of the study. Providing a clear and simply worded Plain Language Statement (in written or video form) is important in establishing informed consent and willingness to participate. While participants are given information about who to contact if they have further questions about the study, this may be an extra step for participants, and they may not feel as able to ask for clarification about the study. Because of this, we try to provide multiple examples of the types of questions that we will ask, as well as providing downloadable support details (for example, for mental health support lines). A positive aspect of surveys is that participants are able to easily ignore recruitment notices to participate in the study. They are also able to stop the survey at any time by exiting out of the browser if they feel discomfort without having to give a reason in person to a researcher.

While the anonymous nature of the survey may be empowering for some participants ( Braun and Clarke, 2013 ; Terry and Braun, 2017 ; Braun et al. , 2021 ), it can also make it difficult for researchers to ascertain if people need any further support after completing the survey. Participants may also fill in surveys with someone else and may be influenced about how they should respond to questions (with the exception of some studies in which people may require assistance from someone to type their responses). Because of the above, some researchers, ethics committees and funders may be more cautious about using these studies for highly sensitive subjects. However, we would argue that the important point is that the studies follow ethical principles and take the lack of direct contact with participants into the ethical considerations of the study. It is also important to ensure that platforms used to collect survey data are trusted and secure. Here, we would argue that universities have an obligation to investigate and, where possible, approve survey providers to ensure that researchers are using platforms that meet rigorous standards for data and privacy.

It is also important to note that there may be responses from participants that may be challenging ( Terry and Braun, 2017 ; Braun and Clarke, 2021 ). Online spaces are rife with trolling due to their anonymous nature, and online surveys are not immune to this behaviour. Naturally, this leads to some silly responses—‘ Deakin University is responsible for all of this ’, but researchers should also be aware that the anonymity of surveys can (although in our experience not often) lead to responses that may cause discomfort for the researchers. For example, when asked if participants had anything else to add to a climate survey ( Arnot et al ., 2024c ), one responded ‘ nope, but you sure asked a lot of dumbass questions’ . Just as with interview-based studies, there must be processes built into the research for debriefing—particularly for students and early career researchers—as well as clear decisions about whether to include or exclude these types of responses when preparing the dataset for analysis and in writing up the results from the survey.

The importance of piloting the survey

Because of the lack of ability to explain and clarify concepts, piloting is particularly important ( Braun and Clarke, 2013 ; Terry and Braun, 2017 ; Braun et al. , 2021 ) to ensure that: (i) the technical aspects of the survey work as intended; (ii) the survey is eliciting quality responses (with limited ‘nonsensical’ responses such as random characters); (iii) the survey responses indicate comprehension of the survey questions; and (vi) there is not a substantial number of people who ‘drop-out’ of the study. Typically, we pilot our survey with 10% of the intended sample size. After piloting, we often change question wording, particularly to address questions that elicit very small text responses, the length of the survey and sometimes refine definitions or language to ensure increased comprehension. Researchers should remember that changes to the survey questions may need to be reviewed by ethics committees before launching the full survey. It is important to build in time for piloting and the revision of the survey to ensure you get this right as once you launch the full survey, there is no going back!

Survey analysis and write-up

Preparing the dataset

Once launching the full survey, the quality of data and types of responses you receive in these types of surveys can vary. There is very limited transparency around how the dataset was prepared (more familiar to some as ‘data cleaning’) in published papers, including the decisions about which (if any) participants (or indeed responses) were excluded from the dataset and why. Nonsensical responses can be common—and can take a range of forms ( Figure 3 ). These can include random numbers or letters, a chunk of text that has been copied and pasted from elsewhere, predictive text or even repeat emojis. In one study, we had a participant quote the script of The Bee Movie in response to questions.

: Visual examples of nonsensical responses in online qualitative surveys.

Part of our familiarization with the dataset [Phase One in Braun and Clarke’s reflexive approach to thematic analysis ( Braun and Clarke, 2013 ; Braun et al ., 2021 )] includes preparing the dataset for analysis. We use this phase to help make decisions about what to include and exclude from the final dataset. While a row of emojis in the data file can easily be spotted and removed from the dataset, sometimes responses can look robust until you read, become familiar and engage with the data. For example, when asked about what they thought about collective climate action ( Arnot et al ., 2023a , 2024c ), some participants entered random yet related terms such as ‘ plastic ’, or repeated similar phrases across multiple questions:

“ why do we need paper straws ”, “ paper straws are terrible ”, “ papers straws are bad for you ”, “ paper straws are gross .”

Participants can also provide comprehensive answers for the first few questions and then nonsensical responses for the rest, which may also be due to question fatigue [( Braun and Clarke, 2013 ), p. 138]. Therefore, it is important to closely go through each participant’s response to ensure they have attempted to provide bone-fide responses. For example, in one of our young people and climate surveys ( Arnot et al ., 2023a , 2024c ), one participant responded genuinely to the first half of the survey before their quality dropped dramatically:

“I can’t even be bothered to read that question ”, “ why so many questions ”, “ bro too many sections. ”

Some market research panel providers may complete an initial quality screen of data. However, this does not replace the need for the research teams’ own data preparation processes. Researchers should ensure they are checking that responses are coherent—for example, not giving information that contradicts or is not credible. In our more recent studies, we have increasingly seen responses cut and pasted from ChatGPT and other AI tools—providing a new challenge in assessing the quality of responses. If you are seeing these types of responses, it might be an opportunity to think about the style and suitability of the questions being asked. For example, the use of AI tools might suggest that people are finding it difficult to answer questions or may feel that they have to present a ‘correct’ answer. We would also note that because of the volume of data in these surveys, the preparation of data involves multiple members of the team. In many cases, decisions need to be made about participants who may not have provided authentic responses across the survey. The research team should make clear in any paper their decisions about their choices to include or exclude participants from the study. There is a careful balancing act that can require assessing the quality of the participants’ responses across the whole dataset to determine if the overall quality of responses contributes to the research.

Navigating the volume of data and writing up results

Finally, discussions about how to navigate the volume of data that these types of studies produce could be a standalone paper. In general, principles of reflexive practices apply to the analysis of data from these studies. However, as a starting point, here are a few considerations when approaching these datasets.

We would argue that online qualitative surveys lend themselves to some types of analytical approaches over others—for example, reflexive thematic analysis, as compared to grounded theory or interpretive phenomenological analysis (though it can be used with these) ( Braun and Clarke, 2013 ; Terry and Braun, 2017 ).

While initial familiarization, coding and analysis can focus on specific questions and associated responses, it is important to analyse the dataset as a whole (or as clusters associated with particular topics) as participants may provide relevant data to a topic under multiple questions ( Terry and Braun, 2017 ). We initially focus our coding on specific questions or a group of survey questions under a topic of investigation. Once we have developed and constructed preliminary themes from the data associated with these clusters of questions, we then move to looking at responses across the dataset as we review themes further.

Researchers should think carefully about how to manage the data—which may not be available as ‘individual participant transcripts’ but rather as a ‘whole’ dataset in an Excel spreadsheet. Some may prefer qualitative data analysis software (QDAS) to manage and navigate data. However, many of us find that Excel (and particularly the use of labelled Tabs) is useful in grouping data and moving from codes to constructing themes.

As with all rigorous qualitative research, coding and theme development should be guided by the research questions. A clear record of decision-making about analytical choices (and being reflexive about these) should be kept. In any write-up, we would recommend that researchers are clear about which survey questions they used in the analysis [researchers could consider providing a supplementary file of some or all of the survey questions—see, for example Hennessy and O’Donoghue (2024) ].

In writing up the results, researchers should still seek to present a rich description of the data, as demonstrated in the presentation of results in the following papers ( Marko et al ., 2022a , 2022b ; McCarthy et al ., 2023 ; Pitt et al ., 2023 ; Hennessy and O’Donoghue, 2024 ). We have found the use of tables with additional examples of quotes as they relate to themes and subthemes can be a practical way of providing the reader with further examples of the data, particularly when constrained by journal word count limits [see, for example, Table 2 in Arnot et al ., (2024c) ]. However, these tables do not replace a full and complete presentation of the interpretation of the data.

This article offers methodological reflections and practical guidance around online qualitative survey design, implementation and analysis. While online qualitative surveys engage participants in a different type of conversation, they have design features that enable the collection of rich data. We recognize that we have much to learn and that while no survey of ours has been perfect, each new experience with developing and conducting online qualitative surveys has brought new understandings and lessons for future studies. In recognizing that we are learning, we also feel that our experience to date could be valuable for progressing the conversation about the rigour of online qualitative surveys and maximizing this method for public health gains.

H.P. is funded through a VicHealth Postdoctoral Research Fellowship. S.M. is funded through a Deakin University Faculty of Health Deans Postdoctoral Fellowship. G.A. is funded by an Australian Government Research Training Program Scholarship. M.H. is funded through an Irish Research Council Government of Ireland Postdoctoral Fellowship Award [GOIPD/2023/1168].

The pregnancy loss study was funded by the Irish Research Council through its New Foundations Awards and in partnership with the Irish Hospice Foundation as civil society partner [NF/2021/27123063].

S.T. is Editor in Chief of Health Promotion International, H.P. is a member of the Editorial Board of Health Promotion International, S.M. and G.A. are Social Media Coordinators for Health Promotion International, M.H. is an Associate Editor for Health Promotion International. They were not involved in the review process or in any decision-making on the manuscript.

The data used in this study are not available.

Ethical approval for studies conducted by Deakin University include the climate crisis (HEAG-H 55_2020, HEAG-H 162_2021); parents perceptions of harmful industries on young people (HEAG-H 158_2022); women and alcohol marketing (HEAG-H 123_2022) and gambling (HEAG 227_2020).

Arnot , G. , Pitt , H. , McCarthy , S. , Cordedda , C. , Marko , S. and Thomas , S. L. ( 2024a ) Australian youth perspectives on the role of social media in climate action . Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health , 48 , 100111 .

Google Scholar

Arnot , G. , Pitt , H. , McCarthy , S. , Cordedda , C. , Marko , S. and Thomas , S. L. ( 2024b ) Australian youth perspectives on the role of social media in climate action . Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health , 48 , 100111 .

Arnot , G. , Thomas , S. , Pitt , H. and Warner , E. ( 2023a ) Australian young people’s perceptions of the commercial determinants of the climate crisis . Health Promotion International , 38 , daad058 .

Arnot , G. , Thomas , S. , Pitt , H. and Warner , E. ( 2023b ) ‘It shows we are serious’: young people in Australia discuss climate justice protests as a mechanism for climate change advocacy and action . Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health , 47 , 100048 .

Arnot , G. , Thomas , S. , Pitt , H. and Warner , E. ( 2024c ) Australian young people’s perspectives about the political determinants of the climate crisis . Health Promotion Journal of Australia , 35 , 196 – 206 .

Braun , V. and Clarke , V. ( 2013 ) Successful Qualitative Research: A Practical Guide for Beginners . Sage , London .

Google Preview

Braun , V. and Clarke , V. ( 2021a ) One size fits all? What counts as quality practice in (reflexive) thematic analysis ? Qualitative Research in Psychology , 18 , 328 – 352 .

Braun , V. and Clarke , V. ( 2021b ) To saturate or not to saturate? Questioning data saturation as a useful concept for thematic analysis and sample-size rationales . Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health , 13 , 201 – 216 .

Braun , V. and Clarke , V. ( 2021c ) Can I use TA? Should I use TA? Should I not use TA? Comparing reflexive thematic analysis and other pattern‐based qualitative analytic approaches . Counselling and Psychotherapy Research , 21 , 37 – 47 .

Braun , V. and Clarke , V. ( 2024 ) A critical review of the reporting of reflexive thematic analysis in Health Promotion International . Health Promotion International , 39 , daae049 .

Braun , V. , Clarke , V. , Boulton , E. , Davey , L. and McEvoy , C. ( 2021 ) The online survey as a qualitative research tool . International Journal of Social Research Methodology , 24 , 641 – 654 .

Chen , J. ( 2023 ) Digitally dispersed, remotely engaged: interrogating participation in virtual photovoice . Qualitative Research , 23 , 1535 – 1555 .

Chowdhury , M. F. ( 2015 ) Coding, sorting and sifting of qualitative data analysis: debates and discussion . Quality & Quantity , 49 , 1135 – 1143 .

Collins , C. S. and Stockton , C. M. ( 2018 ) The central role of theory in qualitative research . International Journal of Qualitative Methods , 17 , 160940691879747 .

de Villiers , C. , Farooq , M. B. and Molinari , M. ( 2022 ) Qualitative research interviews using online video technology—challenges and opportunities . Meditari Accountancy Research , 30 , 1764 – 1782 .

Edwards , R. and Holland , J. ( 2020 ) Reviewing challenges and the future for qualitative interviewing . International Journal of Social Research Methodology , 23 , 581 – 592 .

Elliott , R. , Fischer , C. T. and Rennie , D. L. ( 1999 ) Evolving guidelines for publication of qualitative research studies in psychology and related fields . British Journal of Clinical Psychology , 38 , 215 – 229 .

Fan , H. , Li , B. , Pasaribu , T. and Chowdhury , R. ( 2024 ) Online interviews as new methodological normalcy and a space of ethics: an autoethnographic investigation into Covid-19 educational research . Qualitative Inquiry , 30 , 333 – 344 .

Finlay , L. ( 2021 ) Thematic analysis: the ‘good’, the ‘bad’ and the ‘ugly’ . European Journal for Qualitative Research in Psychotherapy , 11 , 103 – 116 .

Glaw , X. , Inder , K. , Kable , A. and Hazelton , M. ( 2017 ) Visual methodologies in qualitative research: autophotography and photo elicitation applied to mental health research . International Journal of Qualitative Methods , 16 , 160940691774821 .

Hennessy , M. and O’Donoghue , K. ( 2024 ) Bridging the gap between pregnancy loss research and policy and practice: insights from a qualitative survey with knowledge users . Health Research Policy and Systems , 22 , 15 .

Hensen , B. , Mackworth-Young , C. R. S. , Simwinga , M. , Abdelmagid , N. , Banda , J. , Mavodza , C. et al. . ( 2021 ) Remote data collection for public health research in a COVID-19 era: ethical implications, challenges and opportunities . Health Policy and Planning , 36 , 360 – 368 .

Jamie , K. and Rathbone , A. P. ( 2022 ) Using theory and reflexivity to preserve methodological rigour of data collection in qualitative research . Research Methods in Medicine & Health Sciences , 3 , 11 – 21 .

Kennedy , M. , Maddox , R. , Booth , K. , Maidment , S. , Chamberlain , C. and Bessarab , D. ( 2022 ) Decolonising qualitative research with respectful, reciprocal, and responsible research practice: a narrative review of the application of Yarning method in qualitative Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health research . International Journal for Equity in Health , 21 , 134 .

Levi , R. , Ridberg , R. , Akers , M. and Seligman , H. ( 2021 ) Survey fraud and the integrity of web-based survey research . American Journal of Health Promotion , 36 , 18 – 20 .

Malterud , K. , Siersma , V. D. and Guassora , A. D. ( 2016 ) Sample size in qualitative interview studies: guided by information power . Qualitative Health Research , 26 , 1753 – 1760 .

Marko , S. , Thomas , S. , Pitt , H. and Daube , M. ( 2022a ) ‘Aussies love a bet’: gamblers discuss the social acceptance and cultural accommodation of gambling in Australia . Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health , 46 , 829 – 834 .

Marko , S. , Thomas , S. L. , Robinson , K. and Daube , M. ( 2022b ) Gamblers’ perceptions of responsibility for gambling harm: a critical qualitative inquiry . BMC Public Health , 22 , 725 .

McCarthy , S. , Thomas , S. L. , Pitt , H. , Warner , E. , Roderique-Davies , G. , Rintoul , A. et al. . ( 2023 ) ‘They loved gambling more than me’. Women’s experiences of gambling-related harm as an affected other . Health Promotion Journal of Australia , 34 , 284 – 293 .

Pitt , H. , McCarthy , S. , Keric , D. , Arnot , G. , Marko , S. , Martino , F. et al. . ( 2023 ) The symbolic consumption processes associated with ‘low-calorie’ and ‘low-sugar’ alcohol products and Australian women . Health Promotion International , 38 , 1 – 13 .

Reed , M. S. , Merkle , B. G. , Cook , E. J. , Hafferty , C. , Hejnowicz , A. P. , Holliman , R. et al. . ( 2024 ) Reimagining the language of engagement in a post-stakeholder world . Sustainability Science .

Terry , G. and Braun , V. ( 2017 ) Short but often sweet: the surprising potential of qualitative survey methods . In Braun , V. , Clarke , V. and Gray , D. (eds), Collecting Qualitative Data: A Practical Guide to Textual, Media and Virtual Techniques . Cambridge University Press , Cambridge .

Toerien , M. and Wilkinson , S. ( 2004 ) Exploring the depilation norm: a qualitative questionnaire study of women’s body hair removal . Qualitative Research in Psychology , 1 , 69 – 92 .

Varpio , L. and Ellaway , R. H. ( 2021 ) Shaping our worldviews: a conversation about and of theory . Advances in Health Sciences Education: Theory and Practice , 26 , 339 – 345 .

Wang , J. , Calderon , G. , Hager , E. R. , Edwards , LV , Berry , A. A. , Liu , Y. et al. . ( 2023 ) Identifying and preventing fraudulent responses in online public health surveys: lessons learned during the COVID-19 pandemic . PLOS Global Public Health , 3 , e0001452 .

Email alerts

Citing articles via.

• Recommend to Your Librarian
• Journals Career Network

Affiliations

• Online ISSN 1460-2245
• Print ISSN 0957-4824
• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Institutional account management
• Rights and permissions
• Get help with access
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

Breadcrumbs Section. Click here to navigate to respective pages.

Literature Survey and Problem Statement

DOI link for Literature Survey and Problem Statement

Click here to navigate to parent product.

• Privacy Policy
• Terms & Conditions
• Cookie Policy
• Taylor & Francis Online
• Taylor & Francis Group
• Students/Researchers
• Librarians/Institutions

Connect with us

Registered in England & Wales No. 3099067 5 Howick Place | London | SW1P 1WG © 2024 Informa UK Limited

ORIGINAL RESEARCH article

Spontaneous recognition of impactful video games: a user-centric classification framework.

• School of Architecture, Engineering and Design, Universidad Europea de Madrid, Villaviciosa de Odón, Madrid, Spain

The potential impact of a video game is directly conditioned by its recognizability in the public conscience. But classifying video games in this manner can be a challenging endeavor. This paper emphasizes inconsistencies in recognition metrics and the absence of a unified system of classification. It approaches the problem through a twofold methodology involving a systematic literature review exploring existing classifications and genres, and an exploratory survey gathering data on spontaneously recognized video games in Spain. The study utilizes quantitative data to create three lists of video games—most played globally, most representative internationally, and most significant in the Spanish market. The findings reveal complexities in comparing video game data and underscore the importance of comprehensive research frameworks. The study contributes valuable insights into video game recognition dynamics among users, addresses the scarcity of comparative research in the gaming field, revealing the subjective impact of globally recognized video games and highlighting the possible relations between industry trends, spontaneous recognition, and consumer preferences.

1 Introduction

Video games, which are the foremost and most popular form of entertainment in the 21st century, have exhibited consistent growth and enduring popularity. Over the last few decades, they have evolved significantly in complexity, pervasiveness, and overall significance. However, the categorization of these games encounters persistent challenges. It is important to consider that any classification of video games is inherently destined for obsolescence, as the rapid technological evolution of video games continually alters the criteria that must be taken into account. There are various categorizations of video game genres based on gameplay and mechanics, such as Herz’s (1997) , which identifies the type of experience users can expect from a game. Herz initially identified different video game genre categories, which have since expanded alongside the industry’s evolution. While this categorization system serves to classify video game titles by genre, it may not encompass the spontaneous recognition of certain titles in users’ minds.

There are product classifications based on spontaneous recognition, particularly within marketing and consumer psychology. These classifications typically consider consumers’ familiarity with certain brands or products without external stimuli. In the branding and marketing industry, studies often categorize brands and products based on ‘Top of Mind Awareness’ ( Hakala et al., 2012 ; Wardhana, 2022 ). Hugues (2010) conducted a study on the spontaneous recognition of video game brands in France and Ireland. His research shows that brands most recognized by users also tend to have the highest sales of video game titles. However, the study does not list which specific video games belong to these brands. Interestingly, there is a lack of prior research on the spontaneous recognition of video game titles without providing users with a list of previous games. This underscores the necessity of conducting studies such as the one proposed in this article.

As a result, it is found that the classification of the most renowned or widely recognized video games often faces inconsistencies because current indices are structured around rankings that hinder straightforward comparisons. Metrics such as video game usage, sales figures, and user-list rankings often diverge. Given the diverse nature of the origin of the data used to construct them, the outcome may present no overlap whatsoever.

The primary inconsistency in the pursuit of spontaneously recognized user-centric video game rankings is rooted in the variability of parameters across different datasets. It is observed that each dataset employs diverse metrics and criteria such as number of players, sales, downloads, and registrations. Currently, there’s no unified classification system based on consistent criteria. For instance, in analyses regarding player counts, a single list might include games measured by global downloads, daily players, and monthly players. The Sacnilk’s 2022 list compilation ( Jangir, 2022 ) for example integrates games evaluated by global downloads, daily players, and monthly players.

Although certain systematic game rankings have been proposed ( Qaffas, 2020 ; European Videogames Industry, 2021 ; Global Cloud Gaming Report, 2022 ; Clement, 2023b ), there remains an insufficiency in scholarly inquiries evaluating subjective user recognition. This gap in research underscores the need for further investigation and scholarly exploration to comprehensively understand and codify the dynamics of user-centric video game rankings.

To analyze current rankings, it is essential to first understand the evolution of the video game industry and the dynamics of its players.

In 2021, the worldwide gaming community expanded significantly, reaching a 3 billion players globally. This surge was accompanied by the release of over 10,000 new games throughout the year, as reported by the Spanish Association of Video Game and Entertainment Software Producers and Developers Companies ( Asociación Española de Empresas Productoras y Desarrolladoras de Videojuegos y Software de Entretenimiento (DEV), 2022 ) This data underscores the robust growth and pervasive influence of the gaming industry on a global scale.

Systematic reviews on the video game industry, such as the one conducted by Shliakhovchuk and Muñoz García (2020) highlight that it is an industry that is increasingly gaining importance in the world of business and entertainment. The article underscores the global trend of studying the impact of video games on players across a wide range of topics. However, their research lacks any reference to which titles are those that spontaneously appear to users.

Focusing specifically on Spain, the gaming landscape is that there are more than 18 million people actively participating in video game activities. In particular, this participation is distributed relatively evenly between genders, since 52% of participants identify as men, while 48% as women, according to data from the AEVI 2022 Yearbook ( Maroto et al., 2022 ). Furthermore, the commitment to video games in Spain is substantial, with an average of more than 7 h per week dedicated to playing them. This statistic sheds light on the important role of video games in the leisure and entertainment options of the Spanish population.

The prevalence of an extensive array of titles within the market signifies a saturation, emphasizing the wealth and diversity of gaming options accessible to consumers. However, navigating this abundance becomes challenging due to the absence of a ranking system that systematically evaluates these options based on user recognition.

1.1 Hypothesis and objectives

This gives rise to our research question: which video games do users spontaneously recognize?

This inquiry underscores the need to delve into the subjective realm of user acknowledgment, thereby addressing a gap in the current understanding of video game rankings focused on user recognition criteria.

The proposed research hypothesis posits that users spontaneously recognize specific video games, implying the existence of a level of notoriety or popularity inherent to certain titles that surpasses objective classification criteria.

To test the initial hypothesis, exploratory searches have been conducted across diverse specialized media, considering categorizations based on records, sales, and user counts. The aim is to discern the intricacies and potential disparities among these criteria and shed light on the complexities of accurately categorizing video games in light of their popularity and recognition. This data encompasses statistics derived from platforms, shedding light on discrepancies within user populations. It includes data on registrations, sales, and user numbers across different gaming platforms.

Therefore, the main objective of this paper is to comprehensively explore and identify the video games that Spanish users spontaneously recognize.

As the aim is to fill a critical gap in the current understanding of video game rankings by focusing on user recognition criteria within the subjective realm, this paper we will first conduct a literature review analyze existing video game rankings and classifications, evaluating the extent to which they incorporate user recognition criteria. Second will gather data on subjective recognition of video game users in Spain through a questionnaire. Finally, we will propose a framework for a more user-centric video game ranking system that considers subjective elements of user acknowledgment, offering insights for the development of future classification models.

In this way, it is intended to contribute valuable insights into the dynamic interplay between user recognition and video game rankings, ultimately advancing our understanding of the subjective criteria influencing consumer preferences in the gaming industry.

Due to the absence of substantial existing literature addressing our research objectives, a twofold methodology was employed. Initially, a comprehensive systematic literature review was conducted to discern relevant insights. Subsequently, an exploratory survey was conducted to extract pertinent and crucial information for the research. This survey allows the relationship between surveyed users and the spontaneous recognition of video game titles to be comprehended. The questionnaire aimed to illuminate the landscape of video games, specifically focusing on those spontaneously recognized by users. This dual approach ensured a comprehensive exploration of our research objectives and provided a foundation for a thorough understanding of user perceptions and preferences within the gaming landscape. With data gathered from the literature review and the exploratory questionnaire, a triangulation of data is conducted to compile a list of specific video games. This approach allows for the evaluation of the video games that have the most significant impact on the user.

2.1 Literature review

The intersection between video game usage, sales performance, and user-list rankings has become a focal point in the research about the impact of video games. However, given the lack of existing literature reviews with common criteria that address the relationship between users and the video games they spontaneously recognize, in this section it is intended to provide researchers with a comprehensive understanding of the intricate dynamics between users and video games, particularly those that users instinctively recognize.

Existing videogame classifications primarily center around their creation budget, distinguishing between smaller budgets and studios referred to as independent or “indie,” and larger budgets and studios known as “Triple-A.” Alternatively, classifications are based on genres, with action and puzzle games emerging as the most popular ( Pallavicini et al., 2018 ).

Classifying video game genres offers a structured approach to discerning similarities among different forms of interactive entertainment. While there’s no universally accepted standard system for classification, Kirriemuir and McFarlane (2004) support Herz’s (1997) approach, akin to the industry’s categorization. Herz delineates games into categories like action (requiring quick reactions, such as shooters and platform games), adventure (involving puzzle-solving in virtual environments), fighting, puzzles (e.g., Tetris), role-playing, simulation, sports, and strategy. However, the industry has evolved since Herz’s classification, introducing new devices and technologies that influence gameplay.

DeMaria (2007) identifies a range of video game genres based on arcade gameplay, including shooters, third-person adventures, one-on-one fighting, strategy games, RPGs, adventures, simulators, sports, god games, massively multiplayer worlds (MMORPGs), casual games, and mobile games. Notably, he singles out mobile games as a distinct category, considering the device’s role as a distinguishing factor in genre classification.

Subsequent classifications, such as the one conducted by Hernandez-Perez (2015) , return to broader categorizations, enabling the classification of video games regardless of the platform. Hernández-Pérez’s analysis results in categories like action, adventure, simulation, sports, driving, strategy, role-playing, shooter, arcade, and casual games. This classification aligns more closely with Herz’s original categorization. Observations indicate that the six genres associated with the best-rated games include adventure, RPG, shooter, platforms, puzzle, and strategy. However, it is noteworthy that in this study, a list of the most successful video games is provided without specifying the criteria by which success is defined ( Qaffas, 2020 ).

To achieve this, we will conduct an extensive literature review, scrutinizing previous research and scholarly works to identify gaps and trends in the current discourse. Our review will focus on the incorporation of user spontaneously recognize criteria within existing video game rankings and classifications. This process will not only establish a foundation for our study but will also offer insights into the evolution of user-centric considerations in the gaming industry.

This analysis will offer valuable insights into the factors that contribute to a game’s recognition among users, bridging the gap between quantitative measures such as sales figures and the qualitative aspect of user preferences. Consequently, we conducted a bibliographic review to establish valid deductions and compare obtained data. This research methodology was aligned with digital ethnography, emphasizing systematic data collection.

Following the framework proposed by Gómez-Luna et al. (2014) , our bibliographic review adhered to a three-phase study methodology. The first phase involved defining the specific problem, focusing on conducting subsequent bibliographic searches tailored to address the research need—in our case, identifying video games recognized by users spontaneously.

In the second phase, we gathered information through structured bibliographic searches, encompassing reports, rigorously scientific books, and journals. These searches spanned indexed databases and specialized websites in the video game domain ( Shiro Uemura, 2020 ; Asociación Española del Videojuego, 2022 ; Activeplayer, 2023 ; Chaundy, 2023 ; Clement, 2023a ).

The final phase involved organizing and analyzing information by structuring findings into tables for clarity and conducting critical analysis to draw conclusions and cross-reference information.

2.1.1 Comparison of video game rankings and evaluation methodologies from an industry perspective

This discrepancy becomes apparent in studies examining how intrinsic and extrinsic quality indicators impact sales in digital video games ( Choi et al., 2018 ). During the data collection process, researchers often face challenges due to inconsistencies in the information provided by platforms like Steam.

Various information sources from 2020 were analyzed to compile a list of video games. This list is presented in Table 1 which showcases the ‘Most played games Ranked by Average Monthly Players’ where the third column indicates the sources from which the data were extracted.

Table 1 . Most played video games Ranked by Average Monthly Players.

During the analysis process that gave rise to Table 1 , it became evident that each of these sources adheres to distinct criteria for gathering information. Authors employ different methods, including sales figures, platforms, registrations, downloads, simultaneous connections, among others, to determine player numbers. To ensure analytical consistency, we deliberately sought a transversal criterion that could accommodate the diversity in data extraction methodologies. Considering that, according to the report presented by the Spanish Association of Video Game and Entertainment Software Producers and Developers Companies, there are currently 3 billion players globally, the discriminative threshold in Table 1 was set at the 2 million user mark, resulting in a total of 24 specific video game titles.

For comparative purposes with an internationally recognized expert-reviewed study, we conducted an analysis of the report developed by ‘The Strong National Museum of New York’ ( National Museum of Play, 2023 ). The institution was contacted to elucidate their work methodology and variables considered during report preparation. Based on the criteria previously defined by the Museum, a list of video games with international impact was generated from the obtained data.

2.1.2 Spontaneous recognition

To grasp the significance of this study, it’s essential to understand the concept of spontaneous recognition. In “Joystick Nation: How Videogames Ate Our Quarters, Won Our Hearts, and Rewired Our Minds” ( Herz, 1997 ), spontaneous recognition is defined as an individual’s ability to identify something without external cues. In the context of video games, it refers to a player’s ability to name a specific game without additional visual or auditory prompts. Herz primarily focuses on analyzing the cultural and psychological impact of video games, exploring how they have integrated into popular culture and transformed interactive entertainment.

While Herz mentions various types and genres of games, his main objective is not to provide a comprehensive classification but to examine the evolution of video games. Our research, however, aims to compile a detailed list of video games recognized spontaneously by users.

In the realm of brands and marketing, studies on spontaneous recognition often use terms like “Top of Mind” and “Brand Awareness,” sometimes referred to as “Top of Mind Awareness” (from now on, TOMA). Kumar Padhy and Sawlikar (2018) relate spontaneous brand recognition to users’ purchase intentions, showing a clear link between frequently recognized brands and top-selling products. Gupta et al. (2023) conclude that brand recognition, marketing strategy, and brand loyalty significantly impact sales in the electronic products market.

“The Structure of Videogame Preference” ( Klevjer and Hovden, 2017 ) determines the types of video games users prefer by identifying seven clusters of players: Strategists, Roleplayers, Partygamers, Nintendos, Casuals, Lads, and Esporters. Based on a study of 557 users, the most favored titles include: The Sims, Civilization, Angry Birds, Super Mario, The Legend of Zelda, Guitar Hero, Buzz, Singstar, FIFA, GTA (Grand Theft Auto), Call of Duty, Football Manager, World of Warcraft, Starcraft, Counter Strike, League of Legends, DotA (Defense of the Ancients), Half-Life, and Gran Turismo.

2.2 Data collection through survey

To gather information on video games spontaneously recognized by users, an exploratory survey was conducted following the methodology outlined by Romo (1998) . Exploratory surveys are considered a crucial tool for studying human behavior and are quintessential representatives of social analysis techniques. The survey design underwent multiple iterations by the research team to effectively address the study’s objectives, specifically aimed at exploring video games spontaneously recognized by Spanish users. The methodology involved a user-centric design approach to incorporate insights gathered from potential participants during the initial phase to ensure effectiveness.

An online form, created with Google Forms, was employed for efficient data collection. This form not only facilitated the collection process but also ensured compatibility for result comparison with other studies, thereby enhancing the reliability and validity of the findings. The questionnaire, formulated in Spanish, was distributed through social media channels to recruit individuals from various demographic groups. This approach aimed to acquire unbiased and valuable data by ensuring diverse representation in the study.

The questionnaire, with a total of 15 questions, was divided into two sections:

1. The first section aimed to establish the sociodemographic profile of the surveyed sample, involving four multiple-choice closed-response questions and comprised six multiple-choice closed-response questions. These questions inquired about the respondents’ email address, age, gender, educational level, number of days per week spent playing video games, and the location from which they accessed the survey.

2. The second section consisted of 10 specific inquiries regarding the study object. Within this section, respondents encountered nine semi-open response questions. Each respondent was requested to designate their response using the title of a video game, ensuring a quantitative framework despite the open-ended nature of the questions. It is important to highlight that one question within this section addressed characters in video games, a topic deemed non-pertinent to the study and therefore excluded from the analysis.

The questions asked were:

1. Video game to which you have spent the most time (mobile or tablet).

2. Video game you have spent the most time playing (PC or console).

3. Video game from your childhood.

4. Favorite video game.

5. Last Video Game played.

6. Video game that you liked the most because of its graphics.

7. Video game that you liked the most because of its narrative.

8. Favorite platform video game.

9. Favorite open world video game.

The selection of these survey questions is grounded in the aim to comprehensively capture participants’ experiences and preferences, leading to a more representative understanding of spontaneously recognized video games. Each question is designed to elicit specific information about different aspects of the participants’ gaming experiences, contributing to a holistic view. The insights behind specific questions would be as follows:

• Video game to which you have spent the most time (mobile or tablet): This question helps identify the game that has garnered the most investment of time from the participant, providing insights into long-term engagement and preferences in the mobile or tablet gaming domain.

• Video game you have spent the most time playing (PC or console): Similar to the first question, this addresses the participant’s extensive engagement but focuses on PC or console gaming, providing a well-rounded understanding of the participant’s gaming habits across different platforms.

• Video game from your childhood: Childhood is the moment when personal tastes develop. This question taps into nostalgic elements, revealing games that have left a lasting impression on participants and potentially influencing their current gaming preferences.

• Favorite video game: Participants are asked to identify their overall favorite game, providing a direct measure of personal preference, and allowing for the identification of titles that hold significant importance to the individual.

• Last Video Game played: Recent gaming experiences are captured, offering insights into the participant’s current preferences and activities. This complements the historical data obtained from childhood memories and favorite games.

• Video game that you liked the most because of its graphics: Focusing on visual appeal, this question explores the importance of graphics in game enjoyment. It provides information on the significance of aesthetic elements in game design for the participant.

• Video game that you liked the most because of its narrative: Narratives contribute significantly to the immersive experience in gaming. This question assesses the impact of storytelling in games, uncovering titles where narrative elements are particularly valued.

• Favorite platform video game: This question explores participants’ preferences within the platform game genre. Platform games often involve navigating characters through various levels, focusing on precision and timing. By identifying participants’ favorite platform games, we gain insights into their specific interests within this genre, shedding light on the appeal of gameplay mechanics and level design unique to platformers.

• Favorite open world video game: Open-world games provide unique gaming experiences. By identifying participants’ favorite open-world titles, this question taps into the appeal of expansive, non-linear gameplay and emergent narratives.

The first two questions were created to establish a timeframe for participants’ gaming habits, as available industry statistics often rank games based on play times.

Questions three, four, and five aim to capture a broad temporal spectrum of each survey participant’s preferences. By inquiring about initial, overall, and current preferences, we mitigate bias stemming from current tastes or prevailing trends, thus obtaining a more comprehensive understanding of respondents’ subjective preferences.

Questions six and seven are designed to isolate aesthetic preferences, focusing solely on the visual appeal or narrative of a game rather than the overall experience.

Question eight and nine aim to identify genre preferences among respondents. Platform games as a genre were the dominant genre during the late 1980s and early 1990s. This era is often referred to as the “golden age” of platformer games. During this time, iconic platformer titles such as Super Mario Bros., Sonic the Hedgehog, and Mega Man gained widespread popularity and became synonymous with the video game industry. Open-world games are highlighted due to their current popularity. Notably, in the last decade, except for the first-person shooter Overwatch (2016), the winners of The Game Awards’ Game of the Year award have consistently been open-world games: Baldur’s Gate 3 (2023), Elden Ring (2022), It Takes Two (2021), The Last of Us Part II (2020), Sekiro: Shadows Die Twice (2019), God of War (2018), The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild (2017), The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt (2015), and Dragon Age: Inquisition (2014).

Overall, the methodological framework employed in this research, characterized by a well-structured questionnaire and diverse participant recruitment, contributes to a thorough exploration and identification of spontaneously recognized video games within the Spanish user community.

Lastly, a cross-sectional analysis was conducted to examine overlaps with previous analyses, aiming to compile a list of video games reflecting user visual culture.

The quantitative data extracted from the literature review and the survey facilitated the formulation of three lists comprising the most played video games and those that are more representative internationally. These lists were derived from the information obtained through the literature review. Additionally, a separate list was compiled, focusing on games that hold greater significance in the Spanish market, using data gathered from the survey.

3.1 Industry perspective ranking: most played video games

During data collection, multiple rankings or lists of video games were found, but no academic articles focused on the user’s visual culture were discovered. Wolf (2012) compiles and organizes various video games while explaining theoretical and historical content covering different platforms and technologies, but these titles lack scientific rigor.

Several lists comparing video games within the same platform were identified, potentially leading to biased results. Additionally, lists providing data on best-selling video games, most downloaded titles, or based on the number of registered users were observed. However, these datasets differentiate video games based on monetization types ( Clement, 2023a ) Haga clic o pulse aquí para escribir texto.

Following an analysis of diverse information sources, a comprehensive list was developed, encompassing varied data to enable comparison among different video games using common criteria. Despite each video game having a distinct business model and platform, the data does not consistently correlate.

The player count for a specific game is generally available when the game involves online registration. Companies often publicize these figures to highlight the popularity of their product and attract more clients. However, not all games require mandatory registration, and player counts presented by companies are not a homogeneous metric. These counts can include total registered users (not necessarily reflecting current users and strongly correlated with the amount of time the game has been available), the maximum number of active accounts (with varying definitions across companies), and similar figures, making this metric unreliable. Additionally, comparing video games based on sales figures poses challenges due to the prevalence of the ‘free-to-play’ business model, which does not rely on traditional sales metrics.

Monthly player count emerged as recurring data for all video games, irrespective of monetization or platform. This criterion aligns with the approach used by the consulting firm Newzoo in its reports ( Newzoo Global Games Market Report 2022, 2023 ) Haga clic o pulse aquí para escribir texto. Consequently, a list categorized by the number of monthly players across various types and platforms of video games was generated.

From this list, a subset of 20 video games was selected for analysis based on a monthly player count greater than 1 million, as illustrated in Table 1 . The game with the highest count on the list (QQ Speed/GKART/Speed Drifters) boasts over 700 million players, while the least played registers 2 million monthly players, averaging around 143 million players. If the number of players from these 20 games is added up, it reaches 95% of global gamers. It is important to note that some users may play more than one of the 20 video games listed.

A further breakdown of these numbers is depicted in Figure 1 , where the 20 games mentioned earlier are organized into brackets of 100 million users, considering their monthly user bases. The 10 lowest ranked games on the list, i.e., 50% of the games, have less than 100 million monthly users, 45% fall within the user base range of 100–300 million monthly users, and only one instance has a user base of 700 million monthly users.

Figure 1 . Users per month in the 20 most played video games (2023).

It should be noted that this dataset is derived from user bases openly published by companies, studios, or the press. There is a likelihood that there are games meeting the criteria for inclusion in the list but have not disclosed their user bases in a manner that allows for comparison with those included.

From a purely analytical standpoint, the data shows a high level of dispersion, as measured by the standard deviation of 159 million, signifying substantial variability in observed values around the mean. This dispersion is visually apparent in Figure 1 , revealing notable positive skewness. The kurtosis value of 7.7 suggests a leptokurtic distribution, indicating heavier tails compared to a normal distribution. This is further supported by a skewness coefficient of 2.4, indicating a lateral bias due to extremely high values in the distribution. While this data analysis yields a list of current video games, it does not account for games from previous eras that might contribute to an individual’s visual culture.

3.2 Academic perspective ranking

Since 2015, ‘The Strong National Museum of New York’ established ‘The World Video Game Hall of Fame’ ( National Museum of Play, 2023 ) to curate a list of the most iconic and influential video games across various eras and platforms, recognized by people worldwide. This initiative aims to identify the most significant games in the history of gaming.

The museum houses an extensive collection of over 55,000 video games and related artifacts, documenting the evolution of gaming. From numerous nominations, an internal team of video game experts and curators selects 12 finalists annually based on specific criteria, including the definition of each criterion provided alongside:

• Iconic Status: Widely recognized and remembered.

• Longevity: Enduring popularity over time.

• Global Impact: Recognition beyond international borders.

• Influence: Contribution to game design, development, other forms of entertainment, popular culture, or society.

The selection process of the finalists involves several stages:

• The museum compiles a list of a dozen nominees meeting the criteria, representing diverse eras, platforms, and gaming styles, incorporating both past nominees and new entries.

• Confidentially, the 12 nominees are shared with a global selection advisory committee comprising 30 academics and journalists familiar with these games. Each member votes for their top three choices, with a point system (five for first, three for second, one for third). Additionally, public votes carry equal weight as committee votes.

• Final evaluation determines the games entering ‘The World Video Game Hall of Fame’ and justifies the inclusion or withdrawal of previous year’s titles.

For a better understanding of the data obtained by the museum, Table 2 has been created, encompassing all the finalist video game titles based on the provided selection criteria. The aim of Table 2 is to facilitate the analysis of video games with the greatest impact. It outlines the finalist video games from 2015 to 2023 revealing recurring titles over the years. As observed, in 2015 and 2016, 15 titles are listed, which then reduced to 12 from the year 2017 onwards. In this compilation, games like FIFA or Age of Empires, regardless of multiple editions, are grouped under a single title. However, Call of Duty 4 is specified due to significant gameplay changes.

Table 2 . Finalist video games from 2015 to 2023 “The World Video Game Hall of Fame.”

During the indicated period, 74 video game titles became finalists. For a better understanding of Table 2 , Figure 2 has been generated, illustrating the video games with the greatest impact on users. It is observed that Minecraft (2011) appears 44% of the time, while Dance Dance Revolution (1998), FIFA International Soccer (1993), Sid Meier’s Civilization (1991), and Tomb Raider (1996) appear 33% of the time, indicating that Minecraft is the most frequently recognized game. Other titles appear 22% (27) and 11% (42) respectively.

Figure 2 . Percentage of times video games appear.

3.3 Spanish TOMA ranking

Taking these data into account, a survey was conducted in Spain among various age groups to discern which video games obtain spontaneous recognition. The survey consisted of open-ended questions covering various platforms and genres, with the aim of identifying the most significant video game titles for users, regardless of the era.

The demographic data, obtained from the first section of the survey, revealed that after distributing the survey through social media, the study sample comprised a diverse group of 330 individuals aged 12–61 of both genders. This group ranged from Middle School to doctoral studies and reported currently playing video games from 0 to 7 days a week.

3.3.1 Gender

Most respondents identified as masculine, comprising 61% of the total sample, followed by feminine respondents, accounting for 37%. A small proportion of respondents chose not to disclose their gender, representing only 2% of the total sample.

3.3.2 Education

Respondents have varying levels of education, with the majority holding a Vocational Training or University Degree. Specifically, Vocational Training and University Degree holders each constitute 18 and 24% of the total sample, respectively. Other education levels, such as Middle School, High School, Postgraduate, Master, and Doctorate, are also represented in the survey results, albeit with smaller proportions.

Respondents can be categorized into four age groups: Teen (12–17 years old), Young Adult (18–25 years old), Adult (26–50 years old), and Senior (more than 50 years old). The data shows that the majority of respondents fall into the Young Adult and Adult categories, comprising 42 and 44% of the total sample, respectively. Teen respondents represent 7% of the sample, while Senior respondents constitute 8%.

3.3.4 Cross analysis

Gender against frequency of play: Cross-analyzing the data on genders and gaming frequency reveals that among masculine respondents, approximately 45% report low gaming frequency (0–2 days a week), 47% report medium frequency (3–5 days a week), and 7% report high frequency (6–7 days a week). In comparison, feminine respondents demonstrate different distribution patterns, with approximately 48% reporting low frequency, 33% reporting medium frequency, and 19% reporting high frequency. The category representing individuals who decided not to state their gender shows minimal representation across all gaming frequency levels.

Upon examining the data, it becomes apparent that masculine respondents tend to engage in gaming activities more frequently compared to feminine respondents, particularly in the high frequency category. Conversely, feminine respondents are more prevalent in the low frequency category, indicating relatively lower engagement with video games.

Gender against age: When the cross-analysis is applied to genders against age groups, it can be observed that among masculine respondents, the majority fall into the young adult category, constituting approximately 57% of the total, followed by the adult category with approximately 38%. Teen respondents make up a smaller proportion, accounting for around 4%, while Senior respondents represent a minimal percentage. Conversely, feminine respondents demonstrate a different distribution, with approximately 53% falling into the young adult category, 44% into the adult category, and a smaller proportion in the Teen category. The category representing individuals who decided not to state their gender exhibits minimal representation across all age ranks.

Upon examination, it’s evident that both Masculine and Feminine respondents are predominantly concentrated in the young adult and adult age groups. However, there are slight variations in the distribution between the two gender groups within each age rank. Notably, there is a relatively higher proportion of Masculine respondents in the young adult category compared to Feminine respondents, while Feminine respondents show a slightly higher representation in the adult category.

These participants were then directed to the second section of the survey, where they were required to respond to nine semi-open-ended questions with the objective of specifying a particular video game title.

From the nine semi-open-ended questions specifically related to video game titles based on user’s spontaneous subjective recognition, the survey yielded a total of 475 unique video game titles were identified. When more than one title was provided, the first title provided was selected across nine specific questions related to various gaming aspects.

During data filtering, ambiguous data relating to some video game titles in the same series were standardized under a common title because they shared recognizable aspects across the saga. If any of the respondents gave more than one title, only the first one was taken into consideration. In the case of acronyms, as in the case of titles such as GTA, the commercial title Grand Theft Auto was unified.

Further analysis filtered titles that appeared more than 20 times in the defined questions, excluding question 4 (favorite video game), which was limited to 10 due to sample dispersion. This process resulted, as detailed in Table 3 , in the identification of 24 distinct titles:

1. Super Mario Bros

2. Call of Duty

3. Grand Theft Auto

4. Pokémon

6. The Legend of Zelda

7. God of War

8. Assassin’s Creed

9. Fortnite

11. The Last Of Us

12. Red Dead Redemption

13. Clash Royale

14. Minecraft

15. Candy Crush

16. World of Warcraft

17. Uncharted

18. League Of Legends

19. Elden Ring

20. Clash of Clans

21. Mario Kart

22. Valorant

24. Hollow Knight

Table 3 . Survey results.

In Table 3 , we can find, for each title identified, the number of times each of these titles was the answer to each of the questions stated earlier. The columns are labeled 1–9, representing each formulated question. In the last column labeled ‘total,’ the sum of the times a game was named throughout is included. As can be seen there, Super Mario Bros emerges as the most frequent title in several categories: platform video games, favorites, and children’s games. It appears 95 times as a platform game, followed distantly by Hollow Knight, with 11 occurrences.

From the analysis, it can be concluded that the titles that spontaneously appear recurrently in the users’ responses are those that have appeared more than 40 times. Therefore, a list of videogames with a high user impact is provided:

11. The Last of Us

Based on the data presented in Table 3 , Figure 3 has been created to display a bar diagram, for enhanced clarity. Figure 3 provides a visual representation of how frequently each of the 24 analyzed games was mentioned throughout the survey.

Figure 3 . Spontaneous recognition of videogames in the survey.

In Figure 3 , the horizontal axis is divided into distinct sections, each representing a range or “bracket” of potential mentions a game could receive. These brackets delineate various intervals of mention counts. For instance, one bracket might encompass mentions ranging from 0 to 10, while another could cover mentions from 11 to 20, and so forth. Each section along this axis corresponds to a specific numerical range of mentions. Conversely, the vertical axis represents the frequency with which games were mentioned within each respective bracket. For the analysis presented, a total of 24 games were selected as the basis for this study. The vertical axis thus displays the count of these 24 selected games that were mentioned falling within each bracket on the horizontal axis. This graphical representation serves to illustrate the distribution of mentions across different ranges of mention counts, providing insight into the prominence or popularity of the selected games within various levels of mention frequency ( Table 4 ).

Table 4 . Video games entrenched within individuals’ spontaneous recognition.

One notable observation is the bar representing the category of 175–200 mentions, which contains only one game: Super Mario Bros, with a total of 177 mentions. This game stands out as the sole outlier within the dataset. To assess the significance of this outlier, statistical measures such as the mean and standard deviation of the mention counts are utilized. The mean mention count across all games is calculated to be 54.8, with a standard deviation of 35.8 mentions. These statistics provide a measure of the central tendency and dispersion of the mention data. Given that the mean is 54.8 mentions and the standard deviation is 35.8 mentions, a mention count of 177 for Super Mario Bros is more than 3 standard deviations beyond the mean. This places it significantly to the right of the diagram, indicating its substantial deviation from the typical range of mention counts observed for the other games.

Conversely, the mention counts for the remaining titles fall within a bracket of less than two standard deviations from the mean. This suggests that they can be considered typical values within the dataset. In summary, the descriptive analysis highlights Super Mario Bros as an outlier due to its notably high mention count, which significantly exceeds the mean and standard deviation of the dataset. The remaining titles are characterized by mention counts that fall within a more typical range, as indicated by their proximity to the mean and standard deviation.

Continuing with a descriptive analysis of the data represented in Figure 3 , it is revealed that titles exceeding the average appearance count of 55 include Super Mario Bros, Call of Duty, Grand Theft Auto, Pokémon, FIFA, The Legend of Zelda, God of War, and Assassin’s Creed. Despite representing 33% of titles of Table 3 , they account for only 1.7% of the total surveyed titles.

Most of the games (70%) from Table 3 fall inside the second and third bars of Figure 3 . So it is expected that most measures of centrality (mean, median and mode) will concentrate around the values represented within those brackets (25–50 mentions for the second bar and 50–75 mentions for the third bar). The mean, as stated before, corresponds to 54.8 mentions, while the median has a value of 47 and the mode of 53. A standard deviation of 36 suggests notable variability relative to the mean.

The kurtosis and skewness coefficients were obtained in order to further analyze the shape of the distribution presented in Figure 3 . The kurtosis value of five implies a leptokurtic distribution, indicating data clustering around the mean with heavier tails than a normal distribution. Additionally, a skewness coefficient of two indicates positive skewness, signifying a right-tailed data distribution toward higher values, which occurs due to the presence of Super Mario Bros as the mentioned outlier.

A q–q plot of the data presented in Figure 3 , is represented in Figure 4 . A q–q plot, or Quantile–Quantile plot, is a graphical technique employed to compare the distribution of observed data against a theoretical distribution, in this case, the normal distribution.

Figure 4 . Q–Q plot of the values of most mentioned games against a normal distribution.

If the data is represented without including the outlier (with a value of 172), it shows that the games are mentioned following a normal distribution, which is something to be expected, given that the position of the bars represents the perceived popularity of games. The outlier, in this case, Super Mario Bros (1985), predates the most popular entries of the rest of the games on the list by over a decade—more than two in the case of Call of Duty (Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare released in 2007), the next most mentioned game on the list, which does not qualify as an outlier. This longer exposure time to the public consciousness could explain why it breaks the normal trend of the rest of the list.

To provide further insight into the findings presented in Table 3 ; Figure 5 was generated to compare the total number of times a game was named in Table 3 with the number of times that game was selected as the most time-invested game by survey participants. This comparison is broken down by platform, distinguishing between PC or console vs. mobile or tablet usage. The aim of Figure 5 is to investigate potential visual correlation between spontaneous recognition of a game and time invested in it by players.

Figure 5 . Frequency of games mentioned in Table 3 against those with the most time-investment by users (attending to platform).

Figure 5 illustrates that the video game most frequently recognized in individuals’ spontaneous recognition may not necessarily be the one they spent the most hours playing. However, Call of Duty ranks highest in PC/console playing hours and second in total appearances. Titles like Clash Royale and Clash of Clans exhibit a relationship between hours played and appearances in users’ imagination, despite appearing minimally in other categories.

There’s a clear relationship between childhood and favorite video games, with titles like ‘Assassin’s Creed’ and ‘Call of Duty’ frequently appearing in both categories.

A comparative analysis revealed:

• A strong correlation between favorite and childhood games.

• Titles appreciated for graphics, showcasing elaborate, reality-like models.

• A higher frequency of appearances in open-world games (nine titles) compared to platform games, where ‘Super Mario Bros’ stands out with 95 appearances, well above the average.

3.4 Discussion and analysis of cross-sectional results

Upon analyzing the most played video games and the most representative video games internationally, retrieved from the literature review and the data gathered from the survey, it is found that three videogames or sagas consistently appear in all of them: Call of Duty, Minecraft, and Candy Crush. This discovery could serve as a foundational point for future investigations into subjective user recognition criteria.

Consequently, this research has led to the creation of an index featuring 14 video games entrenched within individuals’ spontaneous recognition. These include.

4 Discussion

To address the question of which video games are spontaneously recognized by users, an investigation has been conducted based on data provided by the current industry. It is observed that there are no lists of video games derived from the spontaneous recognition of users.

The classification of video game genres has evolved over time, from early divisions proposed by Herz based on gameplay, to modern classifications that consider the platform on which games are played. While no single system is universally accepted, these classifications provide a framework for organizing and understanding the diverse range of gaming experiences. Herz’s categorization remains the most standardized, but it’s important to remain open-minded and flexible due to the constant evolution of technology, player preferences, and industry trends.

The systematic review has highlighted the difficulties of comparing video game data. Inconsistencies arise from the diversity of criteria among available datasets, compounded by limited open access to industry data, often concealed behind paywalls. Companies have little incentive to disclose competitive data, hindering open research platforms.

Research on spontaneous recognition in video games sheds light on the interaction between video game culture and society. While authors like Herz have explored the cultural and psychological aspects of video games, there’s been no exhaustive classification of video games. In contrast, Klevjer and Hovden’s study of video game preferences reveals seven distinct player clusters and a list of widely recognized titles, showcasing the diversity of preferences within the gaming community. Additionally, studies in other fields, such as brand and electronic product marketing, demonstrate a correlation between spontaneous recognition and consumer behavior, indicating that greater recognition often leads to increased sales success ( Kumar Padhy and Sawlikar, 2018 ; Gupta et al., 2023 ). These findings underscore the relevance of spontaneous recognition not only in the video game industry but also in understanding consumer behavior and marketing strategies across various industries.

To standardize data, concessions were necessary, involving the harmonization of disparate sources. For instance, the analysis of monthly video game user counts omitted titles not requiring online play or registration, leading to exclusions from the list. A compilation of 14 video games has been generated based on users’ spontaneous subjective recognition. This study has highlighted the challenges in comparing video game data. Inconsistencies arise due to varying criteria among available datasets, compounded by limited open access to industry data—often tucked behind paywalls. Companies have little incentive to disclose competitive data, hindering open research platforms.

The complexity of the gaming landscape stems from diverse platforms and individual gaming approaches—ranging from casual mobile games like Candy Crush to intensive gaming experiences like Call of Duty or The Legend of Zelda.

The scarcity of academic literature for comparative studies in the gaming field has been evident, underscoring the need for more comprehensive research frameworks, especially in terms of video game lists,

Through a survey conducted in Spain, valuable data regarding the subjective recognition of video game users have been obtained. It’s apparent that certain globally recognized video games significantly permeate an individual’s visual culture. The provided ranking based on TOMA for Spain could serve as a point of comparison with other countries or population groups. These comparisons would provide greater insight toward the potential correlation between industry, academy and user perspectives both globally and country by country.

This research has underscored the subjective criteria influencing consumer preferences in the gaming industry. The list of video games obtained shows that all of them belong to the most successful genres as defined by Qaffas (2020) , indicating a correlation between industry trends and spontaneous recognition.

Future research endeavors could be to delve deeper into the subjective recognition patterns among video game users.

To gain a comprehensive understanding of user recognition in the video game industry, future research could explore how specific marketing strategies, cultural influences, and social media presence influence individual perceptions of video games. For instance, analyzing how advertising campaigns targeting different demographics impact a game’s perception could reveal insights into the relationship between marketing strategies and user recognition. Similarly, investigating how local or global cultural trends affect the popularity of certain games could provide valuable insights into how consumer preferences are shaped in different cultural contexts. By delving deeper into these aspects, researchers can gain a nuanced understanding of the factors driving user preferences in the video game market, informing more effective marketing strategies, game development decisions, and industry trends.

Data availability statement

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/supplementary material, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding authors.

Ethics statement

Ethical review and approval was not required for the study on human participants in accordance with the local legislation and institutional requirements. Written informed consent from the participants/legal guardian/next of kin was not required to participate in this study in accordance with the national legislation and the institutional requirements.

Author contributions

PT-L: Conceptualization, Investigation, Methodology, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. M-JT-L: Formal analysis, Supervision, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. GC-C: Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Investigation, Supervision, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing.

The author(s) declare that no financial support was received for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Active Player (2023). Among us live player count and statistics, https://activeplayer.io/ . Available at: https://activeplayer.io/among-us/ (Accessed April 27, 2023).

Google Scholar

Activeplayer (2023). Genshin impact live player count and statistics, https://activeplayer.io/ .

Asociación Española de Empresas Productoras y Desarrolladoras de Videojuegos y Software de Entretenimiento (DEV) (2022). Libro Blanco del Desarrollo Español de Videojuegos. Available at: https://dev.org.es/images/stories/docs/libro%20blanco%20del%20desarrollo%20espanol%20de%20videojuegos%202021.pdf (Accessed December 7, 2022).

Asociación Española del Videojuego (2022). La industria del videojuego en España en 2022. Available at: http://www.aevi.org.es/web/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/Anuario-AEVI-2022.pdf (Accessed May 29, 2023).

Bevan, J. (2023). League of legends revenue and user stats (2023) | mobile marketing reads. Available at: https://mobilemarketingreads.com/league-of-legends-revenue-and-user-stats/ (Accessed April 27, 2023).

Chaundy, D. (2023). Most played games in 2022, Ranked by Average Monthly Players, Twinfinite. Available at: https://twinfinite.net/features/most-played-games/ (Accessed April 28, 2023).

Choi, H. S., Ko, M. S., Medlin, D., and Chen, C. (2018). The effect of intrinsic and extrinsic quality cues of digital video games on sales: an empirical investigation. Decis. Support. Syst. 106, 86–96. doi: 10.1016/J.DSS.2017.12.005

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Clement, J. (2023a). All-time best selling console games worldwide 2023 | Statista. Available at: https://www.statista.com/statistics/264530/all-time-best-selling-console-games-worldwide/ (Accessed April 27, 2023).

Clement, J. (2023b). Best-selling video games – top publishers and titles, Statista. Available at: https://www.statista.com/topics/9344/best-selling-video-games-top-publishers-and-titles/#topicOverview (Accessed May 29, 2023).

Clement, J. (2023c). PUBG unit sales 2021 | Statista. Available at: https://www.statista.com/statistics/791791/pubg-player-base-world/ (Accessed April 27, 2023).

Clement, J. (n.a.). Call of duty monthly active users, 2023. Available at: Call of Duty monthly active users (Accessed April 27, 2023).

Curry, D. (2023a). Among us revenue and usage statistics (2023) – business of apps. Available at: https://www.businessofapps.com/data/among-us-statistics/ (Accessed April 27, 2023).

Curry, D. (2023b). Candy crush revenue and usage statistics (2023) – business of apps. Available at: https://www.businessofapps.com/data/candy-crush-statistics/ (Accessed April 27, 2023).

Curry, D. (2023c). Minecraft revenue and usage statistics (2023) – business of apps. Available at: https://www.businessofapps.com/data/minecraft-statistics/ (Accessed April 27, 2023).

DeMaria, R. (2007). Reset: changing the way we look at video games. [Preprint] .

Dhillon, S. (2023). Clash of clans revenue and usage statistics (2023) – business of apps. Available at: https://www.businessofapps.com/data/clash-of-clans-statistics/ (Accessed April 27, 2023).

European Videogames Industry (2021). Video games-a force for good – key facts from 2021 .

Forde, M. (2020). Tencent’s TiMi Studios discuss Call of Duty, Pokémon partnership and 2020 trends | Pocket Gamer.biz | PGbiz. Available at: https://www.pocketgamer.biz/asia/interview/72374/tencents-timi-studios-call-of-duty-pokemon-and-2020-trends/ (Accessed April 27, 2023).

Gaming Ideology (2021). Mini world’ with 100 million monthly active users has issued an announcement and will strictly implement the new anti-addiction regulations, https://gamingideology.com/ . Available at: https://gamingideology.com/2021/08/31/mini-world-with-100-million-monthly-active-users-has-issued-an-announcement-and-will-strictly-implement-the-new-anti-addiction-regulations/ (Accessed April 27, 2023).

Global Cloud Gaming Report (2022). Newzoo .

Gómez-Luna, E., Navas, D. F., Aponte-Mayor, G., and Betancourt-Buitrago, L. A. (2014). Metodología para la revisión bibliográfica y la gestión de información de temas científicos, a través de su estructuración y sistematización. Dyna 81, 158–163. doi: 10.15446/dyna.v81n184.37066

Gupta, S., Bohra, N. S., Sherly,, and Simangunsong, R. (2023). Role of brand-equity on consumer purchase intention in electronic goods industry. J. Inf. Educ. Res. 3. doi: 10.52783/jier.v3i1.36

Hakala, U., Svensson, J., and Vincze, Z. (2012). Consumer-based brand equity and top-of-mind awareness: a cross-country analysis. J. Prod. Brand Manag. 21, 439–451. doi: 10.1108/10610421211264928

Hernandez-Perez, J.F. (2015). Taxonomía del videojuego: un planteamiento por géneros, La Pantalla Insomne. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/308983850_Taxonomia_del_videojuego_un_planteamiento_por_generos (Accessed March 27, 2024).

Herz, J. C. (1997). Joystick nation: how videogames ate our quarters, won our hearts, and rewired our minds . Boston: Little, Brown and Company [Preprint].

https://activeplayer.io/ (2023). Minecraft live player count and statistics. Available at: https://activeplayer.io/minecraft/ (Accessed: April 27, 2023).

Hugues, P. (2010). An investigation based on brand awareness in the video-games industry. Dublin Business School. Available at: http://hdl.handle.net/10788/100 (Accessed March 26, 2024).

Jangir, A. (2022). List of most-played video games (by player count). Available at: https://list.sacnilk.com/article/List_Of_MostPlayed_Video_Games_by_player_count (Accessed March 28, 2023).

Kirriemuir, J., and McFarlane, A. (2004). Literature review in games and learning, a NESTA futurelab research report – report 8. Available at: https://telearn.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00190453/file/kirriemuir-j-2004-r8.pdf (Accessed March 27, 2024).

Klevjer and Hovden (2017). The structure of videogame preference, game studies. Available at: https://gamestudies.org/1702/articles/klevjer_hovden (Accessed March 27, 2024).

Kumar Padhy, S., and Sawlikar, R. K. (2018). The role of brand equity and brand awareness on consumers’ purchase intention. Int. J. Bus. Manage. Invent. 7, 12–16.

Maroto, R., Alegría, P., and González Lorca Presidente de AEVIJosé María Moreno, A. (2022). La industria del videojuego en España en 2021 .

Márquez, R. (2023). Adopt Me! de Roblox ha hecho bien todo lo que Second Life hizo mal o demasiado pronto: así tienen a 64 millones de usuarios y facturan 50 millones. Available at: https://www.xataka.com/videojuegos/adopt-me-roblox-ha-hecho-bien-todo-que-second-life-hizo-mal-demasiado-pronto-asi-tienen-a-64-millones-usuarios-facturan-50-millones (Accessed April 28, 2023).

Mattone, J. (2021). Call of duty®: mobile surpasses 500 million downloads. Available at: https://www.callofduty.com/blog/2021/05/Call-of-Duty-Mobile-Milestone-500-Million-Downloads (Accessed April 27, 2023).

Michingo (2022). ¿Cuántas personas juegan Apex? (Estadísticas de usuario y crecimiento). Available at: https://www.tiempoderecreo.com/juegos/cuantas-personas-juegan-apex-estadisticas-de-usuario-y-crecimiento (Accessed April 28, 2023).

Most Played Games in 2022, Ranked by Average Monthly Players (2023). Twinfinite. Available at: https://twinfinite.net/features/most-played-games/ (Accessed April 27, 2023).

National Museum of Play (2023). 2023 world video game hall of fame finalists. Available at: https://www.museumofplay.org/exhibits/world-video-game-hall-of-fame/2023-finalists/ (Accessed April 21, 2023).

Newzoo Global Games Market Report 2022 (2023). Available at: https://newzoo.com/resources/trend-reports/newzoo-global-games-market-report-2022-free-version (Accessed June 14, 2023).

Pallavicini, F., Ferrari, A., and Mantovani, F. (2018). Video games for well-being: a systematic review on the application of computer games for cognitive and emotional training in the adult population. Front. Psychol. 9:407892. doi: 10.3389/FPSYG.2018.02127/BIBTEX

Pilipovic, S. (2023). How much money has GTA 5 made? — 2023 statistics | LEVVVEL. Available at: https://levvvel.com/grand-theft-auto-v-statistics/ (Accessed April 28, 2023).

PUBG Live Player Count and Statistics (2023). activeplayer.io. Available at: https://activeplayer.io/pubg/ (Accessed April 27, 2023).

Qaffas, A. A. (2020). An operational study of video games’ genres. Int. J. Interact. Mobile Technol. 14:175. doi: 10.3991/ijim.v14i15.16691

RMCTeam (2021). Minecraft registered 500 million Chinese players and the next major update will be launched in 2022 – real mi central. Available at: https://www.realmicentral.com/2021/10/17/minecraft-registered-500-million-chinese-players-and-the-next-major-update-will-be-launched-in-2022/ (Accessed April 27, 2023).

Romo, H.L. (1998). La metodología de encuesta, Técnicas de investigación en sociedad, cultura y comunicación [Preprint] .

Shiro Uemura, O.M. (2020). Investor presentation NEXON Q1 2020. Available at: http://pdf.irpocket.com/C3659/yCGV/B6S9/ynEy.pdf (Accessed April 28, 2023).

Shliakhovchuk, E., and Muñoz García, A. (2020). Intercultural perspective on impact of video games on players: insights from a systematic review of recent literature. Educ. Sci. Theory Pract. 20, 40–58. doi: 10.12738/jestp.2020.1.004

VGS (2023). CrossFire player count, stats and facts | 2023 | VGS, https://videogamesstats.com/. Available at: https://videogamesstats.com/crossfire-facts/ (Accessed April 28, 2023).

Wardhana, A. (2022). “Brand image Dan bran awareness” in Brand marketing: the art of branding , 105–116.

Warren, T. (2020). Microsoft solitaire turns 30 years old today and still has 35 million monthly players – the verge. Available at: https://www.theverge.com/2020/5/22/21266718/microsoft-solitaire-30-years-old-history-birthday-record-attempt (Accessed April 28, 2023).

Wolf, M. (2012). Encyclopedia of video games. Available at: https://books.google.es/books?hl=es&lr=&id=deBFx7QAwsQC&oi=fnd&pg=PP2&dq=list+videogames&ots=ISxw4m2VQf&sig=iKFzkGoOMNi4GPH6O-fQCwbKq6c#v=onepage&q=list%20videogames&f=false (Accessed March 15, 2023).

Zenitsu (2022). LoL: ¿Cuántos jugadores activos hay en 2022? El gran estado de forma del MOBA después de 13 años – Millenium. Available at: https://www.millenium.gg/noticias/49994.html (Accessed April 27, 2023).

Keywords: video games for impact, videogame, emotions, index, user, acknowledgment, user-centric

Citation: Terron-Lopez P, Terrón-López M-J and Castilla-Cebrian G (2024) Spontaneous recognition of impactful video games: a user-centric classification framework. Front. Comput. Sci . 6:1378796. doi: 10.3389/fcomp.2024.1378796

Received: 30 January 2024; Accepted: 21 June 2024; Published: 03 July 2024.

Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2024 Terron-Lopez, Terrón-López and Castilla-Cebrian. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Pilar Terron-Lopez, [email protected] ; María-José Terrón-López, [email protected] ; Guillermo Castilla-Cebrian, [email protected]

Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Numbers, Facts and Trends Shaping Your World

Read our research on:

Full Topic List

Regions & Countries

• Publications
• Our Methods
• Short Reads
• Tools & Resources

Read Our Research On:

2024 National Public Opinion Reference Survey (NPORS)

Field dates: Feb. 1 – June 10, 2024

Download Dataset

This content requires a Pew Research Center account. Please login, or click here to register for an account.

1615 L St. NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20036 USA (+1) 202-419-4300 | Main (+1) 202-857-8562 | Fax (+1) 202-419-4372 |  Media Inquiries

Research Topics

• Email Newsletters

ABOUT PEW RESEARCH CENTER  Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of  The Pew Charitable Trusts .

© 2024 Pew Research Center