Research-writing model · Updated 24 October 2026
RRL Example in Research: Sample Review of Related Literature
See how an RRL in a research paper moves from scope to thematic synthesis, a defensible gap, and a study connection. The passages are original, non-submittable teaching models—not literature-review text to copy.
Quick answer
An RRL example in a research paper shows a structured argument, not a pile of source summaries. A strong Review of Related Literature introduces the scope, brings multiple relevant sources into conversation by theme, states what remains uncertain or underexplored, and explains how that evidence informs the study.
Choose the Right RRL Support for Your Next Step
This page is for studying a worked sample and the relationships between sources. Use a distinct resource when you need a complete writing workflow, citation-to-reference consistency check, page-format guidance, or a source-comparison matrix.
- Worked sample: use this guide to inspect scope, themed synthesis, a supported gap, and a study connection.
- Write an RRL from start to finish when you need the full research-and-writing workflow.
- Check RRL citation consistency when in-text citations need comparison with the reference list.
- Review RRL format guidance for page setup, headings, citation style, and local requirements.
What an RRL Example Should Show
A useful RRL example makes the logic of a literature review visible. Synthesis uses several sources to draw a broader conclusion, while summary simply restates what a source says. Use a model to inspect organisation and level of analysis; write your own review from sources you have actually read and cited.
- Scope: state the topic, population, setting, and organising approach.
- Synthesis: compare patterns, differences, or limits across sources.
- Gap: name a question the reviewed evidence genuinely leaves open.
- Study link: show how the review directs the research question or design.
Worked RRL Example for a Research Paper
The following is an illustrative model about study-planning habits and course performance among first-year university students. “Source A,” “Source B,” and “Source C” are placeholders. Replace them with claims and citations that you can verify in the publications you actually read.
Introduction example
“This review examines literature on study-planning habits and course performance among first-year university students. It focuses on how students organise study time, use planning routines, and respond to competing academic demands. The review is organised around definitions, reported patterns, and contextual factors that may affect the relationship.”
Thematic synthesis example
“Across the reviewed studies, planning is treated as more than keeping a calendar; it includes setting priorities, allocating time, monitoring progress, and adjusting a plan when coursework changes. Source A and Source B both associate consistent planning routines with more reliable completion of course tasks, although they examine different student groups and use different measures of performance. Source C qualifies that pattern by showing that a planning routine may have limited value when students have unstable work schedules or restricted access to study space. Taken together, the studies suggest that planning may matter for performance, but that its relationship with outcomes should be interpreted in light of students’ study conditions rather than as an automatic causal effect.”
Research-gap example
“The reviewed evidence leaves three questions open for the proposed study. Many available studies focus on continuing students rather than the transition into first-year study. The studies use different definitions of planning, making direct comparison difficult. Few studies examine whether paid work hours change the relationship between planning routines and course performance in the local university context.”
Conclusion example
“The literature indicates that study-planning habits are a plausible focus for understanding first-year course performance, but the evidence is shaped by differences in measures, student populations, and study contexts. The review therefore supports a focused investigation of planning routines in the proposed setting rather than a claim that planning alone determines achievement.”
Short RRL Examples by Discipline
The evidence categories and cautious language in an RRL change with the research question. These mini-models are illustrative only, not findings, citations, or text to submit.
Education: feedback and student engagement
A review can compare how studies define formative feedback, timing, clarity, student response, and course setting before identifying an evidence-based gap.
Business and management: flexible work and employee outcomes
Organise sources by the form of flexibility, manager support, outcome measure, and organisational context before narrowing a sector-specific question.
Health: information access and adherence
Compare measures of information access and adherence, then distinguish reported associations from causal claims while recording relevant barriers and service contexts.
Social sciences: social media use and civic participation
Separate platform use, information exposure, discussion, and participation across populations and contexts; state a gap only when the reviewed evidence supports it.
Use an RRL Example as a Model—Not Material to Copy
Use examples to study sequence, synthesis, and careful gap language. Do not reuse their wording, claims, citations, or topic as your own work. Build the final RRL from sources you have read, checked, and cited accurately, and follow your institution’s academic-integrity and AI-use rules.
Find scholarly source leads · Organise a synthesis matrix · Generate a reviewable RRL outline
A Source-First RRL Workflow
Before drafting, note which sources support a theme, which qualify it, and how the interpretation follows from their relationship. Synthesis is not a series of source summaries.
- Find scholarly records by topic, DOI, title, or author, then evaluate the actual source.
- Organise source notes in a synthesis matrix by theme, method, finding, context, and gap.
- Record accurate reference details before drafting.
- Plan a reviewable RRL draft after you have found and checked relevant sources.
- Build and review a theoretical framework before treating a conceptual model as final.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is an RRL example in research?
It is a model of the way a review can introduce scope, synthesize evidence by theme, identify a supported gap, and connect the review to a study. It is not a source of ready-made claims or citations.
Can I copy an RRL example from the internet?
No. An example can show organisation and level of analysis, but submitting copied wording or claims as your own can violate academic-integrity rules.
How do I use an RRL example responsibly?
Use it to test your structure. Build the final review from relevant sources you read, cite claims accurately, and follow the requirements of your course or supervisor.
Is an RRL example the same as an RRL format guide?
No. This guide shows how a source-based argument can move from scope to synthesis, a supported gap, and a study connection. Use a format guide for page setup, headings, citation style, and local requirements.