How to Write a Review of Related Literature (RRL), Step by Step (2026)
Most rejected RRLs share one fault: they are organised by author. Author A found this, Author B found that, Author C found something else. That is a list, and no amount of polishing turns a list into a review.
A review is organised by idea. Each section takes a theme, brings several studies into conversation about it, says where they agree and disagree, and ends by naming what is still unknown. This guide shows how to build that, in the format Philippine research manuals ask for.
Step 1: Know what your manual is actually asking for
Philippine research manuals commonly divide Chapter 2 in ways that surprise students coming from a general writing guide.
Related literature means concepts, theories, definitions and published discussion — books, articles and authoritative commentary that explain your variables. Related studies means actual research investigations: someone gathered data, analysed it and reported findings.
Many manuals also ask you to separate local from foreign sources. The reason is substantive rather than bureaucratic. Findings from another country do not automatically transfer to a Philippine setting, and a panel wants to see that you know which of your evidence is locally grounded.
Some manuals require all four subsections — local literature, foreign literature, local studies, foreign studies. Others want a single integrated review. Get your manual before you write a word of Chapter 2, because reorganising a finished review into four subsections is genuinely painful work.
One further distinction matters if you are on the applied track. A capstone project normally requires a review of related systems alongside the literature — existing solutions, what each does, and where each falls short. That section justifies building yours, exactly as the research gap justifies a thesis method.
Step 2: Gather sources, and screen them honestly
Work from your statement of the problem. Every variable and every key concept in your research questions needs literature behind it. That list is your search plan.
Screen what you find on three criteria:
- Relevance. Does it speak to one of your variables or your setting? Impressive but unrelated studies pad the chapter and weaken it.
- Recency. Many manuals expect most studies to fall within the last five to ten years. Older work is fine when it is foundational — the study that established a theory belongs regardless of date.
- Credibility. Peer-reviewed journals, published books, institutional reports. A blog summarising a study is not the study.
One rule saves more marks than any other: never cite a source you have not opened. Citations copied from another paper’s reference list carry that paper’s errors into yours, and advisers who know the literature catch it. If you cannot access the full text, either find it or drop it.
Step 3: Group your sources into themes before writing
This is the step that converts a list into a review, and it happens on paper, not in the document.
Take your screened sources and sort them by what they are about — not by who wrote them or when. You are looking for three to six themes that together cover your research questions.
For a study on student engagement in blended courses, themes might be: how engagement is defined and measured; factors that raise or lower engagement; engagement in blended and online settings specifically; and engagement in Philippine higher education. Notice that each theme maps onto something your study needs.
A source can appear in more than one theme. That is normal and is a sign you are organising by idea rather than by document.
Step 4: Write each theme as synthesis, not summary
Here is the difference, in the two versions students actually write.
Summary — what gets sent back:
Dela Cruz (2023) studied engagement among college students and found that it was moderate. Santos (2024) studied engagement in online classes and found that it was low. Reyes (2024) studied engagement and achievement and found a positive relationship.
Synthesis — what gets approved:
Studies of engagement in higher education consistently report moderate overall levels, though findings diverge sharply by delivery mode. Dela Cruz (2023) reported moderate engagement in face-to-face settings, while Santos (2024) found markedly lower levels in fully online classes, suggesting that mode of delivery is a stronger determinant than previously assumed. Where engagement has been linked to outcomes, the relationship is positive but modest (Reyes et al., 2024). What remains unclear is whether blended delivery, which combines both modes, produces engagement closer to face-to-face or to online instruction.
The second version does four things the first does not: it opens with a claim, it groups the studies under that claim, it explains what the pattern means, and it ends by naming what is unknown. Same three sources, entirely different chapter.
A workable formula for each theme: state what the literature broadly shows, present the agreeing evidence, present the disagreeing evidence, explain the disagreement if you can, then say what has not been settled.
Step 5: Treat local and foreign sources as an argument, not a quota
Students often treat the local–foreign split as boxes to fill. Used well, it is one of the strongest moves available to you.
Foreign studies usually establish that a phenomenon exists and how it has been measured. Local studies establish whether it behaves the same way here. The interesting sentence is almost always at the join: “While international findings consistently report X, the small number of Philippine studies suggests Y, which may reflect differences in class size and connectivity.”
If you find very few local studies, say so explicitly. A documented scarcity of Philippine evidence is itself a research gap, and it is one of the most defensible justifications an undergraduate thesis can have.
Step 6: End on the research gap
The final section of Chapter 2 must name what is not yet known and connect it to your study. This is the bridge to Chapter 3 — it is what makes your method necessary rather than arbitrary.
A usable gap is specific. “More research is needed” is not a gap. “No study has examined engagement in blended courses among second-year students in Philippine private higher education institutions, and the two local studies available used single-dimension measures” is a gap, and it tells the reader exactly why your study exists.
Gaps come in recognisable kinds: nobody has studied this population, nobody has studied this setting, the existing studies disagree, the existing measures are inadequate, or the phenomenon has changed since the studies were done. Name which kind yours is.
Step 7: Place the frameworks and check alignment
Most Philippine manuals put the theoretical framework and conceptual framework in Chapter 2, usually after the review. The theoretical framework names the established theory your study rests on. The conceptual framework shows how your specific variables relate — often as a diagram with input, process and output, or independent and dependent variables.
Then run the check that prevents the most common Chapter 2 rejection:
- Every variable in your research questions appears in the review. A variable with no literature behind it cannot be justified.
- Every theme connects to at least one research question. A theme that connects to none is padding.
- The gap you name is the gap your study fills — not a broader one you cannot address.
- Your conceptual framework contains only variables you will actually measure.
- Every in-text citation appears in the reference list, and every list entry appears in the text.
Frequently asked questions
What is RRL in research?
The review of related literature — Chapter 2 of a Philippine thesis, covering related literature, related studies, and usually the theoretical and conceptual frameworks.
What is the difference between related literature and related studies?
Related literature covers concepts, theories and published discussion. Related studies are actual research investigations with data and findings.
How many sources do I need?
There is no national figure, and any number you see quoted is somebody’s school rule. Enough that every variable is covered and the gap is established.
How recent should my sources be?
Many manuals expect most studies within the last five to ten years, with older foundational work allowed. Check yours.
Do I need both local and foreign sources?
Many Philippine manuals require both and some specify subsections for each. Confirm with your manual.
Should I organise by author or by theme?
By theme, always. Organising by author is the single most common reason an RRL is sent back.
Where does the theoretical framework go?
Usually in Chapter 2 after the review, though some manuals place it at the end of Chapter 1.
Can I cite a thesis from another school?
Often yes, as an unpublished study, if your manual permits it and you cite it properly. Verify it exists and read it first.
What if there are no local studies on my topic?
Say so explicitly. A documented absence of local evidence is a legitimate and defensible research gap.
How long should Chapter 2 be?
It is usually the longest chapter, but length follows coverage. A long review that never synthesises is worth less than a shorter one that does.
Chapter 2 is where the argument gets built
The review is not a hurdle before the real work. It is where you earn the right to your method — and a panel that accepts your gap will accept your Chapter 3 far more easily.
Tesify helps you build Chapter 2 thematically, keeps every citation attached to the claim it supports, and carries your variables through from Chapter 1 to Chapter 5. It stays 100% written by you, alongside 9,000+ students and 15,000+ chapters.