How to Create a Literature Map for a Research Proposal
By Wasim Ghoor 12 min read
A literature map is a diagram of the studies on your topic, grouped into themes, methods or findings, with labelled links that show how the groups relate and where they disagree. To create one for a research proposal, log your core studies in a matrix, cluster the rows into themes, draw the themes with annotated links and conflicts marked, and place your proposed study where the evidence runs out.
Literature map (definition): a two-dimensional diagram of the research on a topic, in which the links between concepts are drawn as arrows that can be annotated to say how they relate, with the studies grouped under each concept. MESH Guides attributes the idea to Creswell (2011) and describes the finished map as “a plan for your literature review”.
The table below sets out the six kinds of map a postgraduate student is likely to meet, from a sheet of sticky notes to a formal evidence and gap map.
| Type of map | What the map shows | Built from | Best for | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Concept (theme) map | Themes from your reading, the authors listed next to each theme, arrows between themes | Sticky notes or a drawing tool | Planning a proposal’s literature review | MESH Guides |
| Hierarchical map | The main topic or study at the top, then the themes, sub-themes and methodologies found in the literature | A key article and the studies connected to it | Literature with many themes, sub-themes and methodologies | Leeds Trinity University Library |
| Circular map | One circle per theme, method or author | A key article and the studies connected to it | Seeing the literature one theme, method or author at a time | Leeds Trinity University Library |
| Citation map | Papers as nodes, joined by citations and references | Seed papers in a citation-graph tool | Discovering papers you have not found yet | Litmaps; ResearchRabbit |
| Bibliometric map | Clusters of journals, authors or terms, from co-citation and similar counts | Database exports in software such as VOSviewer | Large fields | van Eck and Waltman (2010) |
| Systematic map or evidence and gap map | Which studies exist for each pair of categories, such as intervention by outcome, and which cells are empty | A systematic search, screened and coded | A stand-alone mapping project | James, Randall and Haddaway (2016); White et al. (2020) |
For most research proposals, the first three are the maps to draw yourself, the citation map helps you find papers, and the last two are research methods in their own right.
What is a literature map?
A literature map is a two-dimensional diagram of the research on a topic, in which the links between concepts are drawn as arrows that can be annotated to define the link. The MESH Guides page on literature maps, written by Eira Patterson for the Education Futures Collaboration, gives that definition and attributes the idea to Creswell (cited there as “Cresswell, 2011”).
What does a literature map do that a reading list does not? Think of a reading list as a pile of postcards and a literature map as the street map they were posted from. The MESH Guides page says a literature map helps you “see more clearly how different research studies relate to one another and to group those with similar findings”, and that the finished map “can then be used as a plan for your literature review”.
The same page adds one rule worth keeping: “It is important to represent the different views and any conflicting research findings that exist in the literature” (MESH Guides, citing Newby, 2014). A literature map that shows only agreement is a map of one camp, not of the field.
How do you create a literature map step by step?
You create a literature map in six steps: gather the core studies from a key article, log each study in a matrix, cluster the rows into themes, draw the themes, label the links and conflicts, then place your own study on the map. The steps combine the MESH Guides sticky-note method with Leeds Trinity University Library’s advice to start from one key article.
1. Gather the core studies from one key article
Leeds Trinity University Library’s literature mapping guide starts from one relevant article and follows four connections: the article’s references, other studies by the same authors, the studies that cite the article, and a search on the article’s keywords. Repeat the four connections for each new key article, and stop when the same studies keep coming back. The guide on snowballing and citation chaining covers those searches.
2. Log every study in a matrix
A literature review matrix holds one row per study and one column per feature: population, setting, method, theory and main finding. The matrix is the raw data for a literature map, because a table puts the same features of every study side by side. The free Literature Review Matrix builds the table from your own PDFs.
3. Cluster the rows into themes
The MESH Guides method asks you to “identify emerging themes from your reading and write each of these on separate post-it notes to create headings”, stick them on a large sheet, search your sources for each theme’s key terms, and make a list of the authors who refer to each theme next to its heading. Leeds Trinity suggests grouping studies by theme, method, participants or location; pick one grouping for the first draft of the literature map.
4. Draw the themes as a hierarchical or circular map
Leeds Trinity University Library describes two hand-drawn layouts for a literature map. A hierarchical map puts the main topic or study at the top, and suits literature with many themes, sub-themes and methodologies; a circular map gives each theme, method or author its own circle. Leeds Trinity also suggests keeping a hierarchical map in Excel, with separate tabs for the main study and for the themes, sub-themes and methodologies.
5. Label the links and the conflicts
The last MESH Guides step is to “move the post-its around and explore how the different themes link together”. On a literature map, write the relationship on every arrow (“extends”, “contradicts”, “same finding, new setting”) and mark conflicting findings clearly. The guide on what to do when two studies contradict each other explains how to treat a conflict as evidence.
6. Place your proposed study on the map
Add one box for your proposed study, linked to the themes the study builds on and placed where the arrows stop: a population no box covers, a method no cluster uses, or a conflict no study has explained. The guide on how to find a research gap shows how to test that the gap is real before you claim it.
What should a literature map for a research proposal show?
A literature map for a research proposal should show four things: the main themes or camps in the field, the key studies in each, where the findings agree or conflict, and where your proposed study fits. MESH Guides describes the finished map as “a plan for your literature review”, and the four elements line up with a proposal’s sections as follows.
| Element on the literature map | Where the element goes in the proposal |
|---|---|
| Themes or camps | The subheadings of the literature review |
| Key studies in each theme | The studies discussed under each subheading |
| Agreements and conflicts | The synthesis paragraphs: what the field knows and where the field disagrees |
| Your proposed study | The research gap, the rationale and the research questions |
The guides on how to write a research proposal and how to write a literature review for a research proposal show where the literature review and the gap sit among a proposal’s sections.
How is a literature map different from a literature review matrix and a citation map?
A literature review matrix records what each study did and found, a citation map shows which papers cite which, and a literature map shows how the ideas in a field relate. Students often treat the three as one thing, but each answers a different question at a different stage of the proposal.
| Feature | Literature review matrix | Citation map | Literature map |
|---|---|---|---|
| Question answered | What did each study do and find? | Which papers are connected by citations? | How do the themes relate, and where is the gap? |
| Unit | One row per study | One node per paper | One box per theme or cluster |
| Built from | Reading the papers | Reference and citation data | The matrix, plus your judgement |
| Shows conflicting findings? | Yes, in the findings column | No: a citation link does not say whether the citing paper agrees | Yes, if you draw them |
| Stage of the proposal | While reading | While searching | Before writing the literature review |
A citation map is like a family tree: a citation map tells you who is related to whom, not whether they get on. Litmaps, for example, builds its maps from seed papers, and ResearchRabbit starts from one paper and expands through related works, authors and topics.
What is a systematic map or evidence and gap map?
A systematic map catalogues the available evidence on a broad topic, usually as a searchable database, and shows where studies cluster and where they are missing, without combining the studies’ results. James, Randall and Haddaway (2016) describe systematic mapping as a method that “collates, describes and catalogues available evidence” and identifies “knowledge gaps (to help direct future primary research)” (Environmental Evidence, 5, 7).
An evidence and gap map is the Campbell Collaboration’s matrix version of the same idea. The Campbell guidance by White and colleagues (2020) says that “usually the matrix shows intervention categories as rows and outcomes as columns”, and that evidence and gap maps “usually show what evidence is there, not what the evidence says” (Campbell Systematic Reviews, 16(4), e1125).
A systematic map is a research project in its own right, built from a systematic search and a coded database of studies. A literature map in a proposal is a planning diagram drawn from the studies you have read. The guide on scoping, systematic and narrative reviews helps you decide which kind of review your project needs.
Which tools can you use to make a literature map?
The tools for a literature map fall into four groups: sticky notes or a drawing tool for a concept map, citation-graph tools for discovering connected papers, bibliometric software for large fields, and tools that compare what papers say. Each group does a different job, so many students combine a discovery tool with a comparison tool.
| Tool | What the tool does | Strongest at | Does not |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sticky notes, paper or a drawing tool | Holds themes, author lists and hand-drawn arrows (the MESH Guides method) | Thinking through how themes relate | Find papers or check what papers say |
| Litmaps | Seed-paper maps and monitoring alerts; imports BibTeX, RIS and PubMed files | Finding the papers connected to a seed paper, and automatic updates when new ones appear | Line up what the papers found: a citation link shows that one paper cites another, not what it says |
| ResearchRabbit | A paper discovery and citation-graph tool: start from one paper and expand through related works, authors and topics, with built-in visualisations of how topics relate | Visual citation-graph exploration for finding papers you did not know existed | Write or draft anything, or line up what the papers found |
| VOSviewer | A “freely available computer program for constructing and viewing bibliometric maps” (van Eck and Waltman, 2010) | Co-citation maps of large fields | Work without a database export |
| Litrevu | Reads the papers you add, answers with a citation to the exact passage, and compares papers side by side in a cited table | Seeing what your papers say and where they disagree | Draw a citation graph, or match citation-graph tools at discovery |
If you have not found the key papers yet, start with a citation-graph tool such as ResearchRabbit or Litmaps, because discovery is what those tools are built for. Abertay University Library describes literature mapping tools as tools that “help you explore relationships between academic papers”. Once the papers are in hand, the literature map needs their content: methods, populations and findings.
How do you map a research field with an AI assistant for writing backed by sources?
You map a research field with an AI assistant for writing backed by sources by adding your core papers, asking every paper the same questions, lining the answers up in a cited comparison table, and drawing the literature map yourself from what the table shows. The assistant finds and lines up the evidence; you decide what the clusters and the gap are.
Litrevu is an AI assistant for writing backed by sources. It reads every paper, report and PDF you add, answers your questions with a citation to the exact passage behind each claim, compares sources side by side, and checks your own draft against them.
The Litrevu workflow for mapping a field before a research proposal:
- Add the papers. Upload PDFs, paste a PDF link, a DOI or an arXiv link, paste a paper’s text, or let Litrevu find open-access papers on your topic.
- Ask every paper the same questions. For example: “What population, setting and method did each study use?” and “What was the main finding and the stated limitation?” Litrevu answers with citations only from your papers and says when the papers do not cover a question.
- Compare the papers side by side. Ask for a table of population, setting, method and finding, with citations. Before you draw a conflict on the map, open both citations to see each passage highlighted on its PDF page.
- Draw the map yourself. Turn the clusters in the table into themes, the disagreements into labelled conflict links, and the blanks into the box for your proposed study.
- Check your gap paragraph. Paste the paragraph that describes your gap. Each claim comes back Supported, Partly supported, Contradicted or Not in your papers.
“Not in your papers” means your own library does not cover a claim. “Not in your papers” is not proof that a gap exists in the wider literature, so search for the exact gap, newest first, before you claim the gap. The guide on how to use AI to find a research gap in your own papers walks through that check.
The comparison table looks like this. The rows are a format illustration with placeholders, not real studies:
| Study | Population and setting | Method | Main finding |
|---|---|---|---|
| (Author, Year) | [population], [country] [cited passage] | [design] [cited passage] | [finding on X] [cited passage] |
| (Author, Year) | [population], [country] [cited passage] | [design] [cited passage] | [opposite finding on X] [cited passage] |
| (Author, Year) | Not in your papers | [design] [cited passage] | [finding on Y] [cited passage] |
On the literature map, the first two rows become a conflict link between two themes, and the third row’s missing population becomes a question to search for before it becomes a box.
What mistakes make a literature map useless?
A literature map becomes useless when the map shows authors instead of ideas, leaves out conflicting research, or stops before showing where the proposed study fits. Four mistakes come up most:
- Boxes named after authors. An author-named box repeats the reference list. Name each box after a theme, method or finding and list the authors next to it, as the MESH Guides method does.
- Only the agreeing studies. MESH Guides warns of the danger of selective referencing, “only including literature that supports your own beliefs and findings”. Draw the conflicting studies too.
- A citation graph used as the literature map. A citation link shows that one paper cites another, not whether the citing paper agrees. Use the graph to find papers, then build the literature map from what the papers say.
- No box for your own study. A literature map for a proposal exists to show the gap, so add your proposed study and link it to the themes it builds on.
Frequently asked questions about literature maps
What is a literature map in research?
A literature map is a two-dimensional diagram of the research on a topic, in which the links between concepts are drawn as arrows that can be annotated to say how they relate, with the studies grouped under each concept. MESH Guides attributes the idea to Creswell (2011) and describes the finished map as a plan for the literature review.
Is a literature map the same as a concept map?
A literature map is a concept map whose boxes are groups of studies rather than general ideas. Both use boxes and labelled links; the literature map’s boxes are themes, methods or findings from the research, with the authors listed next to each.
How many studies should a literature map include?
None of the guides consulted for this article (MESH Guides, Leeds Trinity University Library, Abertay University Library) sets a number of studies for a literature map. Include the core studies you will discuss in the literature review, enough for each theme to have its key studies, and add more as your reading grows.
Do I need to include a literature map in my research proposal?
Usually not as a required section: the MESH Guides and Leeds Trinity guides treat the literature map as a planning tool for the literature review. Some supervisors welcome a literature map as a figure, so check your department’s proposal template or ask your supervisor.
What is the difference between a literature map and a systematic map?
A literature map is a planning diagram drawn from the studies you have read. A systematic map is a research method that “collates, describes and catalogues available evidence” from a systematic search and identifies knowledge gaps and clusters (James, Randall and Haddaway, 2016).
Can AI make a literature map for me?
Citation-graph tools such as Litmaps and ResearchRabbit draw maps of which papers cite which, and an AI assistant such as Litrevu can line up what your papers say in a cited comparison table. Deciding the themes, the conflicts and the gap is still your work, so the literature map should reflect your judgement, not a tool’s layout.
Map the field from your own papers
A literature map is only as good as what you know about each study, which means reading the papers, not just their titles and citation links. When your core papers are in one library, Litrevu can line up their populations, methods and findings in a cited table, so you can see the clusters and conflicts and draw the map yourself. Add your papers and compare them side by side. Free to start, no credit card required.