How to Write a Literature Review for Grant Proposals

The Role of the Literature Review in Grant Proposals

A literature review in a grant proposal serves a fundamentally different purpose than one in an academic thesis. In a thesis, the literature review demonstrates your knowledge of the field. In a grant proposal, it builds the evidentiary case for why your project should be funded. Every source you cite, every finding you summarize, and every gap you identify should advance a single argument: that the problem is real, the existing approaches are insufficient, and your proposed intervention is grounded in the best available evidence.

Reviewers use the literature review to assess whether you understand the current state of knowledge, whether your approach is evidence-based, and whether your project fills a genuine gap rather than duplicating existing work. A weak literature review signals that the applicant has not done the foundational research necessary to design an effective program.

Step 1: Define the Scope of Your Review

Before you search for sources, define exactly what your literature review needs to accomplish within the proposal. Most grant literature reviews need to address three questions:

• What is the nature and extent of the problem? This establishes the need your project addresses.
• What approaches have been tried, and what do we know about their effectiveness? This demonstrates your awareness of prior efforts.
• What gaps remain, and how does your project address them? This positions your work as a necessary advancement.

Limit your scope to research directly relevant to your proposed intervention, target population, and setting. A literature review that covers everything tangentially related to your topic wastes precious page space and dilutes your argument. For guidance on building the problem foundation that your literature review supports, see our guide on defining the grant problem and need statement.

Step 2: Source High-Quality Research

The credibility of your literature review depends entirely on the quality of your sources. Prioritize the following in order of persuasive strength:

• Systematic reviews and meta-analyses that synthesize findings across multiple studies.
• Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-experimental studies with comparison groups.
• Peer-reviewed journal articles published in reputable, indexed journals.
• Government reports and datasets from agencies like the CDC, Census Bureau, or NIH.
• Practice-based evidence from evaluated programs similar to yours.

Use databases like PubMed, ERIC, PsycINFO, and Google Scholar for your searches. Set date parameters to prioritize recent research, generally within the past five to seven years, unless citing foundational studies that established the theoretical basis for your approach.

Step 3: Synthesize Rather Than Summarize

The most common mistake in grant literature reviews is writing a series of disconnected summaries: "Smith (2020) found X. Jones (2021) found Y. Williams (2022) found Z." This source-by-source approach fails to build an argument. Instead, organize your review thematically and synthesize findings across studies to identify patterns, consensus, and contradictions.

Effective synthesis reads like this: "Multiple randomized trials have demonstrated that community health worker interventions reduce emergency department utilization among chronically ill populations by 15 to 30 percent (Smith, 2020; Jones, 2021; Williams, 2022). However, these studies were conducted primarily in urban settings with adult populations, leaving a significant gap in evidence for rural adolescent populations, which is the focus of the proposed project."

Organizing Your Review Thematically

Group your sources by theme rather than by study. Common thematic structures for grant literature reviews include:

• Problem scope: Evidence documenting the prevalence and severity of the issue.
• Root causes: Research identifying the factors that drive or perpetuate the problem.
• Intervention evidence: Studies evaluating approaches similar to yours.
• Population-specific findings: Research focused on your target demographic or community.
• Theoretical foundations: The behavioral, social, or scientific theory underpinning your approach.

Step 4: Identify and Articulate Gaps

The gap analysis is the pivot point of your literature review. After presenting what is known, you must clearly articulate what remains unknown or inadequately addressed. This gap becomes the justification for your project. Strong gap statements are specific: they identify the population, geography, methodology, or context that existing research has not covered.

Avoid framing the gap as merely "more research is needed." Instead, specify precisely what is missing and why it matters. For example: "While cognitive behavioral therapy has demonstrated efficacy for adult anxiety disorders, no studies have tested culturally adapted CBT protocols for Indigenous youth in tribal communities, where mental health service utilization rates are 60 percent below the national average."

Step 5: Connect the Literature to Your Approach

Your literature review must flow seamlessly into your project description. The evidence you present should make your proposed approach feel like the logical and inevitable response to the problem and the gaps you have identified. For guidance on connecting your evidence base to measurable project outcomes, see our guide on evaluation methods and implementation science.

Explicitly state how your project builds on the existing evidence. If your intervention is based on a model that has been tested in other settings, cite those studies. If you are adapting an evidence-based practice for a new population, explain the adaptation process and why the core components are expected to transfer. Link your theoretical framework directly to the literature by explaining how the theory predicts the outcomes you are measuring.

Formatting and Length Considerations

Most grant proposals do not have a standalone "Literature Review" section. Instead, the review is woven into the need statement, significance section, and project design narrative. Federal proposals like NIH R-series grants embed the literature into the Significance and Innovation sections. Foundation proposals may integrate it into the project description. Regardless of format, keep your citations current, your writing concise, and your argument focused. For guidance on mapping your project logic from evidence through outcomes, see our guide on logic models and theory of change.

Learn more about grant writing strategies at Subthesis.

Ready to learn how to build evidence-based proposals from the ground up? Enroll in The Complete Grant Architect course for step-by-step training on every component of a winning grant application.