I am writing my first literature review (not using a systematic methodology) and I am trying to put some thought into the underlying structure of the literature review. I have considered these two structures:
Study A does this...
Study B does that...
Study C does this...
My study does this...
In this structure, (at least early on in the review) I write about how the papers that I have gathered vary based on their collective characteristics as parts of a greater whole, e.g. general modelling approach, spatial and temporal scale, problem framing:
These studies differ based on their general modelling approach.
These studies differ in their spatiotemporal scale.
These studies differ in their framing of the problem.
My study is similar in characteristic XYZ, but differs in characteristic ABC, and advances the field through characteristic EFG.
I personally think that Structure 2 is more interesting in terms of content layout and synthesis of the material relative to Structure 1, but at each point of discussion it requires me to talk about mostly the same papers, just in different contexts. So I am concerned that repetition in Structure 2 could be a problem as compared to Structure 1.
Are my concerns justified and are there any further arguments for one of the structures?