Which sources should I include in a literature review PPT?

The short answer is: pick a mix of peer‑reviewed journal articles, a recent conference proceeding, and a reputable textbook or industry report, then let each type occupy a single “source spotlight” slide that shows why it matters for your case. That way you satisfy the professor’s three‑type rule, keep the narrative tight, and give the audience a clear sense of where the key ideas are coming from without drowning them in citations on every slide. When you start sorting the material you’ve already collected, think first about relevance, not quantity. A journal article that introduces a classic strategic framework (say, a resource‑based view) is essential, but if it’s ten years old you’ll also need something that shows how that framework has been updated or contested recently—this is where a conference paper shines. Conference papers are usually concise, cutting‑edge snapshots of ongoing research, so they can provide a fresh angle or a new empirical finding that directly ties to your case study. Finally, a textbook chapter or a well‑known industry white paper can give you the broader context and the “big picture” language that helps non‑specialist listeners follow along. By limiting yourself to one slide per source type, you avoid the temptation to cram every article you’ve read onto the deck, which would overwhelm both you and your audience. A common misconception is that more sources automatically mean a stronger review. In reality, reviewers (and professors) look for depth of engagement, not breadth. If you try to cite six different journal articles across six slides, you’ll run out of room for analysis and end up with a slide that reads like a bibliography. Instead, choose the most impactful piece from each category and use the remaining slides to walk through the logical flow: problem definition, theoretical lens, empirical evidence, and implications for your strategic case. Trade‑offs appear when you have a limited slide count but a lot of compelling material; the way out is to combine related points. For instance, you could place a brief bullet that references both a journal article and a conference paper when they support the same argument, and then cite the textbook on a separate slide that frames the overall strategic context. Imagine you’re analyzing a tech‑startup that’s trying to diversify its product line. You might select: (1) a seminal journal article on diversification strategy that outlines the core concepts; (2) a 2023 conference paper that reports a new metric for measuring diversification success in digital firms; and (3) a textbook chapter that summarizes the evolution of diversification theory and includes a case vignette similar to yours. On the first source slide you’d define the classic theory, on the second you’d show how the new metric updates that theory and why it matters for the startup, and on the third you’d tie everything together with the textbook’s broader perspective, ending with a slide that synthesizes the three into a concise strategic recommendation. This structure keeps each slide focused, demonstrates you’ve consulted distinct source types, and leaves room for your own analysis and visuals. In practice, make sure every citation is formatted consistently (author, year, slide number) and that you include a final “References” slide that lists the full bibliographic details for all three sources. That tiny slide caps the deck, shows academic rigor, and lets you reclaim the earlier slides for content rather than citation clutter. By curating three high‑impact sources, aligning each with a clear purpose, and using the remaining slides for synthesis and insight, you’ll meet the professor’s requirement while delivering a compelling, well‑structured literature review. This approach will help you stay within the 12‑slide limit and still showcase depth of research.