Why Doesnt Each Field Have a Systematic Literature Review

• Editorial
• Published: 03 May 2018

Six tips for your (systematic) literature review in business and management research

Management Review Quarterly volume 68,pages 103–106 (2018)Cite this article

• 33k Accesses

• 103 Citations

• four Altmetric

• Metrics details

With the starting time of our editorial term, we decided to extend Direction Review Quarterly'southward (MRQ's) telescopic beyond (systematic) literature reviews ^{Footnote 1} to include also bibliographic studies, meta-analyses, and replication studies. Nevertheless, literature reviews have been and volition continue to exist a core element of MRQ. Literature reviews have given the journal a unique identity and are crucial in the pursuit of the periodical's aim, which is to summarize, categorize, and challenge existing cognition in business organisation and management enquiry. In this editorial, nosotros outline half dozen tips that help (MRQ) authors to improve their literature review.

A literature review is an essential component of near whatsoever research projection. Information technology serves as the foundation for advancing noesis, facilitates theory development, closes mature research areas, and uncovers novel enquiry areas (Webster and Watson 2002). Frank and Hatak (2014) refer to a literature review every bit a "knowledge map", which analyzes and synthesizes prior literature. Because literature reviews are so prevalent, in that location exist already several comprehensive resources that guide authors through the steps necessary to conduct a literature review (e.thousand., Aguinis et al. 2018; Booth et al. 2016; Frank and Hatak 2014; Tranfield et al. 2003; Webster and Watson 2002).

Surprisingly, there is a still considerable variance in the understanding of what a literature review is and, consequently, in the quality of systematic literature reviews. Oftentimes, researchers seem unfamiliar with the process, structure, and presentation of systematic literature reviews and produce just descriptive, annotated bibliographies of loosely connected inquiry, which makes it unnecessary circuitous and difficult for the readers to follow the literature review. The literature review therefore does not achieve its chief goal of summarizing and categorizing knowledge.

There is as well the misconception that literature reviews are less rigorous or easier to write than empirical articles. Notwithstanding, conducting a literature review of high quality requires an in-depth understanding of the necessary processes and skills and is by no ways a picayune endeavor. It also requires some experience in the respective field, as the interpretation of the results of the studies included in the literature review is subjective and by no means piffling.

Here, we outline half-dozen suggestions that nosotros think are crucial for every literature review:

1. ane.

   Motivate the topic and country the research question The abstract and introduction are crucial elements of whatsoever inquiry commodity. Usually, the reader decides after looking at the abstract and/or introduction whether he will read the entire commodity or not. Additionally, a literature review needs a crisp and curtailed motivation. It is important to not simply motivate why a topic warrants investigation but also why the authors choose to approach the topic in the form of a (systematic) literature review. Perhaps the about important element of an introduction is the research question that guides the remainder of the literature review. Therefore, nosotros encourage authors to carefully develop and clearly state their research question(s) in the introductory section.

2. 2.

   Place the relevant literature in a systematic fashion A distinguishing characteristic of a systematic literature review is that the review process should be transparent and reproducible. The authors need to clearly outline their search strategy for identifying relevant literature in a systematic way to establish as much transparency as possible. This involves a clarification of the databases where the literature search was conducted, a definition of the search terms and keywords used to place literature, and a conscientious clarification of the practical (east.g., linguistic communication, availability) and methodological (eastward.yard., time frame, article blazon) screening and exclusion criteria used. Detect that the application of screening criteria (e.chiliad., only focusing on highly ranked journals) should exist well-justified, as screening criteria can have crucial implications for the results and their generalizability.

3. 3.

   Choose the correct balance between latitude and depth When conducting a systematic literature review, authors often face the dilemma of choosing betwixt breadth and depth when identifying and describing prior studies. In general, a good systematic literature review is characterized past the correct residuum between latitude and depth past including all relevant studies but only describing important studies in more than particular in a structured fashion. This dilemma is often difficult to solve, as a literature review should exist coherent and cover a research field as a whole, only it should not be an endless, overly descriptive summary of all studies that the authors identified. To solve this dilemma to some extent, authors should make use of tables and figures to convey the well-nigh important concepts and information in an efficient fashion. For example, figures tin can exist used to illustrate the development of the number of studies over time and tin can likewise illustrate which topics have attracted the most research. Of form, tables and figures should be used in a sensible fashion and should never present the main focus of the literature review. The latitude and depth of a literature review also depend on the maturity of the inquiry field. A literature review on a mature topic requires that the authors analyze and synthesize a large body of literature, in comparing to a review on a more than novel field where only few studies exist. The authors of this editorial were one time challenged to summarize the literature on the intersection of entrepreneurship and innovation. At first, this seemed to exist an impossible job. However, subsequently having developed a more concise inquiry question (see suggestion 1), developing clear inclusion and exclusion criteria (see proposition 2), focusing on latitude instead of depth (come across proffer 3) and on concepts rather than studies (see suggestion 4), the task became doable. The whole process took many iterations and was very work-intensive, but we managed to evangelize a literature review at the intersection of innovation and entrepreneurship or vice versa (see Block et al. 2017).

4. 4.

   Focus on concepts, not studies Authors need to decide how to summarize and categorize the literature identified. While it is possible to summarize literature in a chronological or fifty-fifty alphabetical order, we believe that literature reviews should be concept-centric. This involves a careful identification and evaluation of the underlying concepts used in the review, which then guide the analysis conducted. Focusing on concepts instead of studies helps authors to identify the research debates they aim to contribute to and helps to ensure a better structure throughout the manuscript. Hence, a systematic literature review needs to be based on sound logical and conceptual reasoning. This can (but need non) atomic number 82 to a new conceptual framework with propositions. In this sense, writing a systematic literature review very much resembles the writing of a conceptual theory paper.

5. 5.

   Derive meaningful conclusions Closely connected to the previous bespeak, we want to reiterate that a systematic literature review must become beyond a mere descriptive summary of prior literature. While information technology is important to provide a descriptive overview on the topics and studies included, it is essential to go one step further and to synthesize and interpret this knowledge. The literature review should derive meaningful conclusions and needs to respond the question: What do we learn from this summary? This includes carefully evaluating and deriving implications, pointing out gaps in the literature, and outlining avenues for future research.

6. vi.

   Follow a coherent article construction A coherent construction is a crucial chemical element of whatever research article. The structure of a systematic literature review resembles the structure of an empirical commodity. The introduction motivates the topic and describes the contributions of the literature review. The next section describes the systematic review process and the cardinal concepts used. Afterwards that, the crucial part is the synthesis and estimation of the literature review's findings. This department can just demand not lead to the derivation of propositions or a conceptual model (see proposition four above). The final section of a literature review provides a determination and discussion with the boundaries of the review and the future research areas. The order of the sections is non static and can vary depending on the review'south topic. For example, one tin too put suggestions for future enquiry directly into the body of the commodity where the main findings from the literature review are described and/or discussed. All the same, a coherent structure is an absolute necessity for a systematic literature review.

In add-on to incorporating these vi suggestions, nosotros encourage authors interested in submitting a systematic literature review to MRQ to advisedly read the references provided in this article.

Notes

1. Annotation that the term "systematic literature review" is not conspicuously defined. In MRQ's understanding, it refers to all literature reviews that follow a systematic, transparent, and reproducible process for identifying bookish literature near a clearly defined topic or research question.

References

• Aguinis H, Ramani RS, Alabduljader N (2018) What y'all encounter is what you get? Enhancing methodological transparency in management enquiry. Acad Manag Ann 12(1):83–110

  Article  Google Scholar

• Block J, Fisch C, van Praag M (2017) The Schumpeterian entrepreneur: a review of the empirical show on the antecedents, behavior, and consequences on innovative entrepreneurship. Ind Innov 24(1):61–95

  Article  Google Scholar

• Booth A, Sutton A, Papaioannou D (2016) Systematic approaches to a successful literature review. Sage, Thousand Oaks

  Google Scholar

• Frank H, Hatak I (2014) Doing a enquiry literature review. In: Fayolle A, Wright M (eds) How to get published in the best entrepreneurship journals. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 94–117

  Google Scholar

• Tranfield D, Denyer D, Smart P (2003) Towards a methodology for developing evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. Br J Manag 14(3):207–222

  Article  Google Scholar

• Webster J, Watson RT (2002) Analyzing the past to prepare for the future: writing a literature review. MIS Q 26(2):xiii–xxiii

  Google Scholar

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank Andreas Kuckertz (University of Hohenheim) and Alexandra Moritz (Trier University) for their valuable comments that greatly improved the manuscript.

Author information

Affiliations

1. Trier University, Trier, Federal republic of germany

   Christian Fisch & Joern Block

2. Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, Holland

   Christian Fisch & Joern Block

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christian Fisch.

Rights and permissions

Almost this article

Cite this article

Fisch, C., Block, J. Six tips for your (systematic) literature review in business and management research. Manag Rev Q 68, 103–106 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11301-018-0142-x

Download commendation

• Published: 03 May 2018

• Issue Date: April 2018

• DOI : https://doi.org/ten.1007/s11301-018-0142-x

brownnellove.blogspot.com

Source: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11301-018-0142-x

Share this post