Literature Review and Conceptual Framework

Introduction

A brand management dissertation is not built from a collection of quotations. It is built from a reasoned account of what is already known, how that knowledge has been produced, where scholars disagree, and what the proposed study will add. The literature review therefore performs an analytical function: it establishes the intellectual foundation for the research problem and justifies the study’s conceptual framework.

In brand management, this task is particularly important because the subject draws on marketing, consumer psychology, strategy, communications, design, sociology, technology and business analytics. A study of brand loyalty, for example, may involve consumer perceptions, relationship theory, customer experience, social media interaction and financial outcomes. A rigorous review must connect these perspectives without treating them as interchangeable.

This chapter explains how to search academic and industry sources systematically, evaluate their credibility, synthesise competing perspectives, identify a research gap, construct a conceptual framework and use citations responsibly. It also demonstrates the process through an illustrative brand-management case.

Learning objectives

By the end of this chapter, you should be able to:

1. Explain the purpose and structure of a literature review in a brand-management dissertation.
2. Search for relevant academic and industry evidence systematically.
3. Assess the authority, relevance, currency and methodological quality of sources.
4. Compare and synthesise competing theories and findings.
5. Distinguish a genuine research gap from a simple lack of information.
6. Develop a defensible conceptual framework and research propositions or hypotheses.
7. Apply appropriate citation, quotation, paraphrasing and referencing conventions.
8. Recognise ethical, technological and practical issues in contemporary evidence use.

1. The role of the literature review

A literature review is a structured and critical synthesis of existing knowledge relevant to a research question. It is not merely a summary of individual articles. A strong review explains relationships among studies, evaluates the quality of evidence and shows why further research is warranted.

In a brand-management project, the review usually performs five functions:

• Conceptual clarification: defining terms such as brand equity, authenticity, engagement or loyalty.
• Theoretical positioning: identifying theories that explain the proposed relationships.
• Evidence assessment: examining what empirical research has found and how convincingly.
• Gap identification: showing what remains unresolved, under-examined or contextually uncertain.
• Framework development: translating the review into concepts and relationships to be investigated.

The literature review should be aligned with the research question. A broad question such as “How does social media affect brands?” is too imprecise for a useful review. A more researchable question might be: “How does perceived brand authenticity in short-form video content influence brand trust and purchase intention among university students?” The latter identifies a phenomenon, possible mechanism, outcome and population.

Literature review, annotated bibliography and theoretical framework

These three forms of academic work are related but different.

A dissertation may contain all four elements, but they should not be confused. A conceptual framework can draw on several theories, whereas a theoretical framework usually gives greater emphasis to one or more established explanatory traditions.

2. Defining and delimiting the research problem

Before searching, the researcher should define the boundaries of the review. Useful boundary decisions include:

• Topic: for example, influencer credibility rather than all digital marketing.
• Market or industry: such as fashion, financial services or higher education.
• Population: for example, Generation Z consumers or business buyers.
• Geography: one country, region or a cross-national comparison.
• Time period: especially where platforms or consumer practices change rapidly.
• Evidence type: peer-reviewed studies, books, reports, trade data or regulatory documents.
• Outcome: brand awareness, consideration, trust, loyalty, advocacy or financial performance.

A review that lacks boundaries often becomes descriptive and unmanageable. Delimitation is not a weakness; it is a declaration of what the study can reasonably claim.

A useful planning tool is a review protocol. It may specify the research question, databases, keywords, inclusion and exclusion criteria, screening procedure and method of synthesis. A protocol improves transparency and reduces the risk of selecting sources merely because they support an expected conclusion.

3. Systematic searching for evidence

3.1 Developing search terms

Search terms should be derived from the central concepts in the research question. Synonyms and related terms are important because different disciplines may use different labels. For a study of authenticity, the search vocabulary might include:

• “brand authenticity”
• “perceived authenticity”
• genuineness
• sincerity
• credibility
• “consumer trust”
• “purchase intention”
• “social media brand communication”

Boolean operators can refine database searches:

• AND narrows a search: authenticity AND brand trust.
• OR expands a search: authenticity OR genuineness.
• NOT excludes a term, although it should be used cautiously.
• Quotation marks search an exact phrase: “brand equity”.
• An asterisk may capture word variants where a database supports truncation: authenti*.

Searches should be recorded in a search log. The log may contain the database, date, search string, filters, number of results and useful sources identified. This record supports methodological transparency and makes the review reproducible in principle.

3.2 Source categories

Academic sources commonly include journal articles, scholarly books, edited chapters, conference papers and theses. Industry and professional sources may include annual reports, brand valuation reports, consumer surveys, consultancy research, platform reports and trade publications. Public sources can include government statistics, legislation, regulatory guidance and reports from recognised professional bodies.

The correct source depends on the claim. A peer-reviewed article may be appropriate for a theory of brand relationships. A company’s annual report may be appropriate for its stated brand strategy but is not neutral evidence of consumer response. A consultancy report may provide current market data but may disclose limited details about sampling or measurement.

3.3 Screening sources

A practical screening process has three stages:

1. Title and abstract screening: remove clearly irrelevant results.
2. Full-text screening: assess relevance, method and substantive contribution.
3. Quality appraisal: record strengths, limitations and suitability for the specific claim.

A source matrix helps prevent superficial reading.

4. Evaluating source credibility

Credibility is multidimensional. A recent source is not automatically better than an older one, and a highly cited source may not be appropriate for every research question. Consider the following criteria.

Authority

Authority concerns the expertise and institutional standing of the author or publisher. Peer review, editorial standards, recognised academic publishers and transparent organisational authorship are positive indicators. Authority should not be treated as infallibility: even influential scholars can make contestable claims.

Relevance

A source is relevant when its concepts, population, context or method bear directly on the research question. A study of luxury-brand symbolism may be theoretically relevant to a supermarket-brand project but may not transfer directly to it.

Methodological quality

Assess the research design, sampling, measurement, analysis and conclusions. Ask whether the evidence supports the level of claim being made. A cross-sectional survey may show association but usually cannot establish temporal causality. A qualitative interview study may provide rich explanations but should not automatically be generalised to a national population.

Currency

Currency matters greatly in platform marketing, artificial intelligence, privacy regulation and consumer behaviour. However, classic works may remain essential when they introduced foundational concepts. A good review combines seminal sources with current research rather than replacing one category with the other.

Transparency and independence

A credible source explains its data, methods and limitations. Industry research should be examined for sponsorship, undisclosed commercial interests, selective reporting and unclear definitions. Commercial evidence is not useless; it should be labelled appropriately and triangulated with other evidence.

Citation influence

Citation counts can help identify influential work, but they are not a quality score. They may reflect age, disciplinary conventions or controversy. Use citation metrics as search aids, not as substitutes for reading and evaluation.

5. From summary to synthesis

Synthesis is the intellectual centre of a literature review. It involves comparing studies and developing an explanation of the field. Four organising strategies are particularly useful.

Thematic synthesis

Studies are grouped by substantive themes, such as authenticity, trust, engagement and loyalty. This is often suitable for applied brand research.

Theoretical synthesis

The review compares explanatory theories. For example, customer-based brand equity emphasises consumer knowledge structures, while relationship-oriented perspectives emphasise trust, commitment and interaction (Aaker, 1991; Keller, 1993; Fournier, 1998).

Methodological synthesis

The researcher compares how knowledge has been generated. For example, quantitative studies may identify relationships between social media activity and purchase intention, whereas qualitative studies may reveal how consumers interpret sincerity and commercial motives.

Chronological synthesis

The review traces how a concept has developed. This approach is useful when ideas have changed substantially, but chronology alone is rarely sufficient. A sequence of summaries does not become synthesis merely because it is arranged by year.

A useful paragraph structure is:

1. State the theme or analytical claim.
2. Compare several relevant sources.
3. Explain agreement, disagreement or methodological difference.
4. Evaluate the evidence.
5. Link the synthesis to the research question.

For example, research commonly treats brand authenticity as beneficial to trust, but studies differ in how authenticity is defined and measured. Some approaches emphasise continuity and heritage; others emphasise sincerity, transparency and consumer interpretation. Consequently, a study should not assume that a brand’s self-description establishes authenticity. It should investigate perceived authenticity from the consumer’s perspective.

Competing perspectives in brand management

Brand scholarship contains several important debates:

• Managerial versus consumer-centred views: A brand may be treated as an identity designed by the organisation or as meaning co-created by stakeholders.
• Cognitive versus relational views: Brand equity may be represented as memory, associations and awareness, or as trust, attachment and commitment.
• Consistency versus adaptability: Strong brands require recognisable meaning, yet contemporary markets demand cultural responsiveness and innovation.
• Company control versus stakeholder co-creation: Organisations influence brand meaning, but customers, employees, creators and communities also shape it.
• Short-term performance versus long-term equity: Promotions may increase immediate sales while weakening perceived value or distinctiveness if overused.

A critical review does not select a perspective silently. It explains which perspective is most appropriate and why.

6. Theoretical foundations for brand research

Aaker’s brand equity perspective

Aaker (1991) conceptualised brand equity as a set of assets and liabilities associated with a brand name or symbol. The framework includes brand awareness, perceived quality, brand associations and brand loyalty, alongside other proprietary assets. Its value lies in showing that brands create value beyond the functional product. A limitation is that the categories can overlap and may not fully explain how consumers interpret brands in interactive digital environments.

Keller’s customer-based brand equity model

Keller (1993) defined customer-based brand equity as the differential effect of brand knowledge on consumer response to marketing. The model distinguishes brand awareness and brand image, with image comprising associations held in memory. It offers a strong basis for examining how communications affect consumer response. However, memory-based models may require extension when brand meaning is continuously negotiated through communities and social platforms.

Brand relationship theory

Fournier (1998) argued that consumers can form relationships with brands that have symbolic, emotional and behavioural dimensions. This perspective supports research into attachment, commitment, intimacy and partner quality. It also cautions against treating consumers as passive recipients of brand messages. A limitation is the risk of anthropomorphism: brand relationships should be measured carefully rather than assumed to be equivalent to interpersonal relationships.

Service-dominant and co-creation perspectives

Service-dominant logic treats value as emerging through use and interaction rather than being embedded solely in a product (Vargo & Lusch, 2004). Applied to branding, this perspective highlights customer experience, communities, employees, platforms and other actors. It is valuable for studying digital and experiential brands, although its broad language can make operational measurement difficult.

Signalling and identity perspectives

Signalling theory helps explain how brand cues reduce uncertainty when consumers cannot directly observe quality. Names, certifications, design, endorsements and transparent information may act as signals, although their effectiveness depends on credibility and the cost of inconsistency. Identity perspectives examine how brands express organisational values and how consumers use brands to construct or communicate identity. These perspectives are especially relevant to purpose, sustainability and cultural branding.

No single theory is automatically superior. The chosen theory should match the research problem, constructs, unit of analysis and evidence available.

7. Identifying a defensible research gap

A research gap is not simply a topic that has never been studied. In a mature field, a valuable gap may involve:

• Conceptual uncertainty: a construct has competing definitions.
• Empirical inconsistency: studies report different relationships.
• Contextual limitation: evidence comes mainly from one country, sector or demographic.
• Methodological limitation: research relies heavily on self-report surveys or cross-sectional designs.
• Theoretical omission: a relevant mechanism or boundary condition is missing.
• Practical change: new platforms, technologies or regulations alter established relationships.
• Replication need: an important result requires testing in a different setting.

A weak gap statement says, “Few studies have examined this topic.” A stronger statement explains what is missing and why it matters: “Existing studies generally examine influencer credibility as a direct predictor of purchase intention, but give limited attention to whether perceived commercial transparency changes the effect among younger consumers.”

A gap should be proportionate to a bachelor’s dissertation. The aim is not to solve the whole field but to make a clear, feasible contribution.

8. Constructing the conceptual framework

A conceptual framework is a visual and verbal representation of the concepts and relationships that guide the study. It translates the literature review into a researchable structure.

Important distinctions include:

• Construct: an abstract concept, such as trust or authenticity.
• Variable: an observable or operationalised representation of a construct.
• Independent variable: a proposed explanatory factor.
• Dependent variable: an outcome to be explained.
• Mediator: a mechanism through which an effect may operate.
• Moderator: a condition that changes the strength or direction of a relationship.
• Control variable: a factor held constant or statistically adjusted because it may influence the outcome.

Consider an illustrative framework in which perceived brand authenticity influences purchase intention through brand trust, while consumer involvement strengthens or weakens the relationship.

Figure: Illustrative conceptual framework linking perceived brand authenticity, trust and purchase intention.

The arrows represent propositions to be tested, not established facts. The literature must justify each arrow. For example:

• P1: Perceived brand authenticity is positively associated with brand trust.
• P2: Brand trust is positively associated with purchase intention.
• P3: Brand trust mediates the relationship between perceived brand authenticity and purchase intention.
• P4: Consumer involvement moderates the relationship between authenticity and trust.

A proposition is appropriate for conceptual or qualitative work; a hypothesis usually states a testable prediction in a quantitative design. The framework should not contain more constructs than the project can measure adequately.

Operationalisation

Each construct requires an operational definition. “Brand trust” might be defined as the consumer’s willingness to rely on a brand based on expectations of reliability, honesty and competence. Indicators could involve agreement with carefully adapted scale items from prior studies. The researcher should explain whether scales are adopted, adapted or newly developed, and should preserve conceptual meaning during adaptation.

9. Citation and referencing conventions

Citations perform three essential functions: acknowledging intellectual ownership, allowing readers to verify claims and distinguishing evidence from the researcher’s interpretation. The dissertation should follow one style consistently, such as APA 7th edition, unless the university specifies another style.

Paraphrasing

A paraphrase expresses a source’s idea in genuinely new wording and structure, with a citation. Changing a few words while retaining the original sentence structure is not adequate paraphrasing. A synthesis paragraph may cite several sources together when the claim is supported collectively.

Direct quotation

Use quotations sparingly, mainly when the exact wording is theoretically significant or unusually precise. Include the author, year and page number for a paginated source. Quotations should not replace the researcher’s analysis.

Secondary citation

Use a secondary citation only when the original work cannot reasonably be accessed. The reference list should normally include the source actually read, following the required style. Whenever possible, locate and cite the original source.

Reference-list accuracy

Every in-text citation should correspond to a reference-list entry, and every entry should be cited in the text. Check author names, publication year, title, journal, volume, issue, page range and DOI or stable URL where required. Reference-management software can reduce transcription errors, but it cannot evaluate source quality or guarantee correct formatting.

Academic integrity and artificial intelligence

Plagiarism includes presenting another person’s words, ideas, data or structure as one’s own. Fabricated citations are particularly serious because they create false evidence. Generative AI tools may assist with search-term brainstorming, language editing or organising notes where institutional policy permits. They should not be treated as authoritative sources, and all generated references must be verified against the original publication. Confidential interview data and copyrighted texts should not be uploaded without permission. The student remains responsible for accuracy, attribution, privacy and compliance with assessment rules.

10. Applied case: developing a framework for a sustainable fashion brand

Background

This illustrative case concerns “NaturaWear,” a fictional mid-market fashion brand that communicates the use of recycled materials and ethical manufacturing. The brand receives positive engagement on social media but faces consumer scepticism about whether its sustainability claims are genuine.

Problem

Management wants to know whether transparent sustainability communication can increase purchase intention. A simple managerial assumption would be that more sustainability content directly produces more sales. The literature review suggests a more cautious explanation: consumers may first judge the brand’s authenticity and trustworthiness, and the effect may differ according to environmental involvement.

Analysis of the literature

The researcher searches Scopus, Web of Science, Google Scholar and relevant industry reports using combinations of “sustainable fashion,” “brand authenticity,” “green trust,” “greenwashing,” “purchase intention” and “consumer involvement.” Peer-reviewed research is used for constructs and relationships; regulatory guidance and industry reports are used to establish the market and governance context. Company claims are treated as evidence of NaturaWear’s communication, not as proof of environmental performance.

The review identifies three findings. First, sustainability claims can support favourable brand associations when consumers regard them as credible. Second, vague or exaggerated claims can create scepticism and perceptions of greenwashing. Third, consumer involvement may influence how carefully claims are evaluated. The evidence is not sufficient to assume that communication alone changes actual purchase behaviour.

Proposed approach

The dissertation could use a mixed-method design. Interviews might explore how consumers interpret words such as “ethical” and “responsible.” A survey could then measure perceived authenticity, sustainability trust, environmental involvement and purchase intention. The design should distinguish purchase intention from actual purchase and should report limitations such as convenience sampling and cross-sectional data.

Expected outcome and interpretation

Suppose the study finds that authenticity is strongly associated with trust, while the direct relationship between communication frequency and purchase intention is weak. This would suggest that content volume is less important than evidence quality, specificity and perceived sincerity. If highly involved consumers are more sceptical, that would not mean sustainability communication is ineffective; it would indicate that the same message may be evaluated differently across segments.

Learning points

The case demonstrates that a framework should emerge from synthesis rather than managerial intuition. It also shows why constructs must be separated: communication activity, perceived authenticity, trust and purchase intention are not the same variable. Finally, the case illustrates triangulation: consumer evidence, academic theory, company communication and regulatory standards answer different questions.

11. Limitations and best practices

A literature review is vulnerable to publication bias, database limitations, language restrictions, confirmation bias and rapidly changing terminology. Brand research may also over-rely on self-reported attitudes and intention measures. Social media metrics can appear precise while measuring visibility rather than meaningful brand value.

Best practice includes:

• Start with the research question, not with a favourite theory.
• Search multiple databases and record the search process.
• Prefer original, peer-reviewed and methodologically transparent sources for central claims.
• Use industry reports for current context, not as automatic substitutes for scholarship.
• Compare definitions before comparing findings.
• Distinguish correlation, prediction and causation.
• Explain contradictory evidence rather than hiding it.
• Keep the framework feasible for the available time, sample and analytical skill.
• Maintain a reference library and verify every citation.
• State limitations and avoid claims broader than the evidence.

Contemporary developments

Digital platforms have made brand meaning more distributed. Customers, employees, creators, algorithms and online communities participate in brand communication. Artificial intelligence is also changing content production, personalisation, search visibility and customer service. These developments create opportunities for relevance and efficiency but raise concerns about disclosure, bias, privacy, intellectual property and synthetic or misleading endorsements.

Researchers should therefore examine not only whether a technology improves engagement, but also how it affects trust, authenticity, agency and accountability. Regulatory requirements concerning advertising disclosure, data protection, environmental claims and consumer protection may shape both the research context and the managerial implications. Contemporary literature should be used critically: novelty does not guarantee theoretical importance, and platform-specific findings may become outdated quickly.

Chapter Summary

A literature review is an analytical foundation for a brand-management dissertation. It defines the problem, evaluates relevant evidence, compares theoretical perspectives, identifies a defensible gap and supports a conceptual framework. Systematic searching requires planned keywords, multiple source types, transparent screening and a source matrix. Credibility depends on authority, relevance, methodological quality, currency, transparency and independence.

Synthesis moves beyond source-by-source description by identifying patterns, disagreements and reasons for differing findings. Brand research may draw on brand equity, customer-based brand equity, relationship, signalling, identity and co-creation perspectives. A conceptual framework converts selected constructs into proposed relationships, which must be justified and operationalised. Sound citation practice protects academic integrity and enables verification. In contemporary brand research, digital platforms, sustainability claims and AI increase the importance of transparency, critical evaluation and responsible evidence use.

Key Terms

Academic source: Scholarly material produced through recognised research or academic publishing processes.

Annotated bibliography: A source list containing summary and critical commentary on each item.

Brand equity: Value associated with a brand beyond the functional characteristics of the product or service.

Construct: An abstract concept developed for theoretical analysis, such as trust or authenticity.

Conceptual framework: A model showing the key concepts and proposed relationships in a study.

Credibility: The degree to which a source is authoritative, relevant, transparent and trustworthy.

Gap: A significant unresolved issue, limitation, inconsistency or under-examined context in existing knowledge.

Hypothesis: A testable prediction about a relationship between variables.

Independent variable: A proposed explanatory or predictor variable.

Industry source: Market, professional or organisational evidence produced outside traditional academic publishing.

Mediator: A variable that explains how or through what mechanism one variable affects another.

Moderator: A variable that changes the strength or direction of a relationship.

Operationalisation: The process of translating an abstract construct into measurable indicators or research procedures.

Peer review: Evaluation of scholarly work by experts before publication.

Proposition: A theoretically informed statement about a relationship, often used in conceptual or qualitative research.

Research protocol: A documented plan specifying search, selection and evaluation procedures.

Synthesis: Integrated interpretation of findings across sources.

Theoretical framework: The established theory or theories used to explain a research problem.

Triangulation: Use of multiple sources, methods or perspectives to strengthen interpretation.

Review Questions

Short Answer Questions

1. What are the five principal functions of a literature review in a brand-management dissertation?
2. Distinguish a conceptual framework from a theoretical framework.
3. Why should industry reports be evaluated differently from peer-reviewed journal articles?
4. What is the difference between a mediator and a moderator?
5. Why is a research gap more than a topic that has received little attention?

Long Answer Questions

1. Explain how a researcher could design and document a systematic search for literature on brand authenticity.
2. Compare Aaker’s brand equity perspective, Keller’s customer-based brand equity model and Fournier’s brand relationship perspective.
3. Discuss the criteria that should be used to evaluate the credibility of academic and industry sources.
4. Explain how synthesis differs from summary and demonstrate how contradictory findings can be analysed.
5. Describe the stages involved in developing and operationalising a conceptual framework for a brand-management dissertation.

Analytical / Application Questions

1. A company claims that increasing social media posting frequency will increase brand loyalty. Design a literature-based conceptual framework that evaluates this claim and identify at least one possible mediator and moderator.
2. A sustainability report states that consumers strongly prefer a brand because of its ethical sourcing. Explain how you would test the credibility and relevance of this claim using academic, industry and primary evidence.
3. Develop three research propositions for the NaturaWear case and explain what evidence would be needed to support or challenge each proposition.

References

Aaker, D. A. (1991). Managing brand equity. Free Press.

Fournier, S. (1998). Consumers and their brands: Developing relationship theory in consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 24(4), 343–373.

Keller, K. L. (1993). Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based brand equity. Journal of Marketing, 57(1), 1–22.

Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2004). Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing. Journal of Marketing, 68(1), 1–17.

Multiple Choice Questions with Answers

Question 1

What is the primary analytical purpose of a literature review?

A. To list as many publications as possible

B. To synthesise existing knowledge and justify the proposed study

C. To replace the need for primary research

D. To promote the researcher’s preferred brand theory

Correct Answer: B. To synthesise existing knowledge and justify the proposed study

Question 2

Which search operator narrows a database search by requiring both terms?

A. OR

B. NOT

C. AND

D. ASTERISK

Correct Answer: C. AND

Question 3

Which source is most directly suitable for evidence about a company’s stated brand strategy?

A. The company’s annual report

B. An unrelated textbook

C. A fictional case study

D. A search-engine advertisement

Correct Answer: A. The company’s annual report

Question 4

What is a mediator in a conceptual framework?

A. A variable that explains how an effect occurs

B. A variable that is always held constant

C. The final research conclusion

D. A source-selection criterion

Correct Answer: A. A variable that explains how an effect occurs

Question 5

Which statement best describes a research gap?

A. Any subject with no internet results

B. A significant unresolved issue or limitation in existing knowledge

C. A paragraph containing no citations

D. A theory that is more than ten years old

Correct Answer: B. A significant unresolved issue or limitation in existing knowledge

Question 6

What does a moderator do in a proposed relationship?

A. It changes the strength or direction of the relationship

B. It proves that the relationship is causal

C. It replaces the dependent variable

D. It removes the need for operationalisation

Correct Answer: A. It changes the strength or direction of the relationship

Question 7

Which practice best demonstrates synthesis?

A. Summarising each article in publication order only

B. Comparing findings, methods and explanations across studies

C. Quoting every source directly

D. Using only the most recent source

Correct Answer: B. Comparing findings, methods and explanations across studies

Question 8

According to Keller’s customer-based brand equity perspective, brand equity concerns the differential effect of brand knowledge on what?

A. Employee salaries

B. Consumer response to marketing

C. Production costs

D. Competitor distribution

Correct Answer: B. Consumer response to marketing

Question 9

Which statement about a cross-sectional survey is most accurate?

A. It automatically establishes causation

B. It normally observes data at one point or period and may show association

C. It cannot measure consumer perceptions

D. It is always more reliable than interviews

Correct Answer: B. It normally observes data at one point or period and may show association

Question 10

Which is an appropriate use of generative AI in dissertation work, subject to institutional policy?

A. Inventing sources to fill a literature gap

B. Submitting unverified generated references

C. Brainstorming search terms while verifying all evidence independently

D. Uploading confidential participant data without permission

Correct Answer: C. Brainstorming search terms while verifying all evidence independently