I also spent time looking specifically at how a literature review should be structured because this was the section I was most at risk of turning into a list of papers.

My first instinct was to work through the sources one at a time: explain what one author says, then explain the next. The guidance I read made it clear that this would describe the literature but would not necessarily demonstrate a strong critical understanding of it.

The literature review needs to be organised around ideas, themes and debates, not around the order in which I found the sources.

Organising by Themes and Trends

This was probably the most useful structural change.

Instead of creating a paragraph for Doyle, a paragraph for Dwyer and a paragraph for Bhattacharya, I need to decide what argument I am trying to make and then bring the relevant sources into that discussion.

For example, a paragraph about independence can combine research on autonomy, self-determination and lived experience. A paragraph on sensory accessibility can compare evidence around sensory reactivity, predictability, perceived control and opportunities for recovery.

The paragraph should belong to the argument, not to the author.

Combining Two or Three Sources

I also noted that stronger paragraphs often bring two or three sources into conversation with one another.

This gives me a way of showing whether researchers agree, whether one study extends another or whether there are tensions between their conclusions.

That is much more useful than repeatedly summarising individual papers because it lets me demonstrate that I understand the wider field rather than only the contents of each source.

Looking for Conflict and Gaps

A literature review should not create the impression that every source agrees.

I need to identify where the evidence is inconsistent or where different methods produce different conclusions. I also need to ask what questions remain unanswered.

This is particularly relevant to physiological sensing. There is evidence that signals such as HRV can provide information about autonomic activity, but there is not a simple or universal relationship between one biosignal and sensory overload.

That unresolved area is not a weakness in my report. It is part of the research gap and helps explain why the project needs further investigation.

Evaluating the Research

My notes also reminded me to look beyond the authors' conclusions.

I need to ask whether the sample is appropriate, whether the research method suits the question, whether the conclusions are actually supported by the data and whether a different theoretical or methodological approach might have produced a different result.

This is particularly important where I am using studies from related fields. A paper may be technically useful for understanding biosensing while still having no autistic participants or no connection to airports.

I can still use it, but I need to be clear about what it can and cannot support.

Relevance to My Project

Another thing I want each paragraph to do is explain why the literature matters to the project.

I do not want the review to become a detached academic exercise. If I discuss sensory variability, I need to show how that challenges one-size-fits-all accessibility. If I discuss autonomy, I need to explain how that affects the design of support. If I discuss physiological sensing, I need to show why its limitations matter when designing a responsive system.

The Structure I Want to Use

From this research, I decided that each literature-review paragraph should roughly move through a similar process: establish the point, bring relevant evidence together, compare or evaluate that evidence, identify the limitation or implication, and then connect it back to the research problem.

I do not need every paragraph to follow an identical formula, but this gives me a useful framework while drafting.

The literature review should show what the field currently understands, where that understanding becomes uncertain and how those uncertainties shape my own research question.

Key Terminology

Literature review — a critical synthesis of existing research relevant to the question being investigated.

Thematic structure — organising the literature around ideas, issues or debates rather than discussing papers one by one.

Synthesis — combining evidence from several sources to develop a broader argument.

Research gap — an area where existing evidence is missing, limited, inconsistent or has not yet addressed the specific question being investigated.

Critical evaluation — assessing the strengths, limitations, methods, evidence and relevance of research rather than only summarising its conclusions.