Should I Choose a Systematic, Narrative, or Critical Review for My PhD?

Many PhD students in our discipline begin their research with a systematic literature review, but I believe this may not always be the most effective approach. As a PhD typically consists of three papers, the focus of the first paper should be on exploration and reflection, rather than being confined to the rigid framework of a systematic review. A systematic review can limit creative and critical thinking, making it more difficult for PhD students to step outside of predefined boundaries. Instead, a more flexible approach – such as a narrative or critical literature review – can encourage deeper engagement with existing academic discourses. This allows students to question established assumptions, challenge theoretical consensus, or resolve intellectual controversies. This openness to critique and exploration is more likely to spark new ideas that can guide the development of meaningful research questions for the second and third papers. Ultimately, this approach may lay a stronger foundation for making original contributions to the discipline.