Doing A Literature Review In Business And Management
Doing a literature review inbusiness and managementProf. David Denyer
Doing a literature review inbusiness and managementThe importance of literature reviews2 key challenges: fragmented field; undevelopedreview methodsHow to conduct a systematic AND criticalreview6 principles8 steps5 common traps
The importance of literature reviewsText McKercher et al (2007) ʻWhy referees reject manuscriptsʼ
McKercher et al (2007) ʻWhy referees reject manuscriptsʼ
The importance of literature reviewsStronger focus on theoretical framing / theorydevelopmentHigh impact journals that focus solely on reviews(IJMR, AoM Annals, AMR)Literature review papers are often highly citedEvidence-based practice, commissioned reviewsMSc dissertations based solely on a literature review(a project on the literature)Advances in technologies – making it more importantto keep up-to-date
The importance of literature reviewsThe foundations uponwhich your thesis isbased, your data will beanalysed and yourdiscussion/conclusionspresented.Photo courtesy of iStockphoto.com/GavinD
Join a conversation (Huff 1999)Who (individuals/authors/papers/books) do I want to talkto?What are they talking about asI arrive?What are the most interestingthings I have to add?How do I introduce myself?Photo courtesy of iStockphoto.com/qingwa
.a Journey
Business and management research
Learningand changein extremecontexts(mappingthe field) CELL -
ScopingStudy – thelandscape,seminalstudies(cities) andconnectionsbetweenthem (mainroads) CELL -
Systematicreview – allof thepapers(towns)within adefined areaand theconnectionsbetweenthem(roads) CELL -
Finalcontribution– typically 4or 5researchers(villages) ina verytightlydefined area CELL -
Literature review some keyquestions (adapted from Hart 1998)What are the key theories,What are the key sources?concepts and ideas?What are the major issuesand debates about thetopic?What are the keyepistemological andontological grounds for thediscipline?Literature search andreview of your topicWhat are the origins anddefinitions of the topic?What are the mainquestions and problemsthat have been addressedto date?How has knowledge in thetopic been structured andorganized?How have approaches tothese questions increasedour understanding andknowledge?
Fragmented fieldHardSoftAgreement/disagreement on problem typeMethodological unity/methodological pluralismPureAppliedNot/concerned with practical applicationKnowing what/knowing howConvergentDivergentShared/fragmented ideologies and valuesWell defined/ragged boundariesUrbanRuralNarrow/wide area of studyHigh/low people to problem ratioBecher, A, (1989), Academic Tribes and Territories: IntellectualEnquiry and the Cultures of Disciplines, The Society forResearch into Higher Education and the Open UniversityPress, Milton Keynes.
Fragmented fieldHardSoftAgreement/disagreement on problem typeMethodological unity/methodological pluralismPureAppliedNot/concerned with practical applicationKnowing what/knowing howConvergentDivergentShared/fragmented ideologies and valuesWell defined/ragged boundariesUrbanRuralNarrow/wide area of studyHigh/low people to problem ratio}}Fragmentation ofcontent andmethodFragmentationof researchcommunityBecher, A, (1989), Academic Tribes and Territories: IntellectualEnquiry and the Cultures of Disciplines, The Society forResearch into Higher Education and the Open UniversityPress, Milton Keynes.
The nature of the field.‘.makes it tough to know what we know, especially asspecialization spawns research communities that oftendon’t and sometimes can’t talk with each other.Organizational researchers commonly adopt positionsregarding management practices and organizationaldecisions for which no accumulation of evidence exists,or where at least some of the evidence is at odds’Rousseau et al (2010)
Undeveloped review methodsHow many people here have had training in reviewingliterature?Are we really “standing on the shoulders of giants”?Do you recognize these sort of unqualified statements?“Previous studies have shown that ”“It has been demonstrated that ”But how many studies? Demonstrated how? Did otherstudies find something else?Very few systematic reviews in management
Undeveloped review methodsHave you read a literature that was.“.just like the essays you used to write as a [undergraduate orMasters] student? You would browse through the indexes ofbooks and journals until you came across a paragraph that lookedrelevant, and copied it out. If anything you found did not fit in withthe theory you were proposing, you left it out. This, more or less,constitutes the methodology of the journalistic review-an overviewof primary studies which have not been identified or analysed in asystematic way“ (Greenhalgh, 1997: 672)
How to conduct a systematic ANDcritical review "A review of the evidence on aclearly formulated question thatuses systematic and explicitmethods to identify, select andcritically appraise relevant primaryresearch, and to extract and analysedata from the studies that areincluded in the review“A reviewer’s critical accountdesigned to convince a particularaudience about what published(and possibly also unpublished)theory, research, practice or policytexts indicate is and what is notknown about one or morequestions framed by the reviewer.Poulson and Wallace, 2004: 25NHS Centre for Reviews andDissemination, 2001
How to conduct a systematic AND criticalreview “ .you are first like a detectivefinding the evidence then a thelawyer arguing the case.”
(P1) Focused be clear about the scope/boundaries ofthe review formulate clear review questions make extensive efforts to find ALL therelevant literature
(P2) Transparent follow an appropriate (but not rigid)system explain in detail how the review wasconducted justify the choices that you have made
(P3) Conclusive aim to make reasonably clear conclusionsabout what we do and do not know (nb.finding an absence of evidence is equallyimportant as finding “evidence”)provide a link between the evidence and anyclaims that you makepresent the evidence so that the reader candraw their own conclusions - e.g. tables;appendices
(P4) Reflective a mind-set that is underpinned by a sense of humility and anattitude of ʻpolite doubtʼ (Cotterell)be mindful of how your values and beliefs influence thereview “.whilst it is possible to adopt a relatively impartial orneutral position to reviewing you will not be able toassume an unbiased or wholly objective one. Evenattempting to be neutral implies valuing the stance ofneutrality!” (Wallace)surface and explore the assumptions held by the authors ofthe texts that you read and taken-as-givens within your field
(P6) Convincing recognise and decipher the arguments in thepapers that you readdevelop a point of view or ʻpositionʼ and offerreasons (evidence/justifications) to support thepositionreviews often have one main argument thatmay have a number of contributing argumentsthat are structured into ʻline of reasoningʼ orthe ʻstorylineʼ.
(P6) Interesting “The first criterion by which people judge anythingthey encounter, even before deciding whether it is trueor false, is whether it is interesting or boring.” MurrayDavis (1999: 245)look at things in a new way, shed fresh light on oldtextsreveal previously unnoticed connections between ideaspoint out things that are counterintuitive or challengethe assumptions held by your audience.
Finding an appropriate balance
8 key steps
Step 1a: Mapping the field
Step 1b: Scoping study .a process ofgoing up alleysto see if theyare blind anonymousPhoto courtesy of iStockphoto.com/carterdayne
Step 1c Forming the reviewpanel Advisory groups or panels are formedto provide the reviewer with guidanceand support. The review panel may be consultedindividually or as a group at key pointsthroughout the review. The group should include subjectexperts from academia and practice. Where possibility the review panelshould be diverse and able to offerdifferent perspectives and expertise. Academics working in the areaPractitioners working in the fieldLibrarians / information scientists
“The question addressed by thesystematic review needs to bedefined very precisely since thereviewer must make adichotomous (yes/no) decision asto whether each potentiallyrelevant paper will be included or,alternatively rejected” TrishaGreenhalghFormulating review questions issimilar to preparing researchquestions for primary research.CIMO - context, intervention,mechanism, outcomeStep 1d: reviewquestions /objectives
What general area or topic do you want tofocus on? Why?What specific review question will you address?Is it specific enough?Where is this question from? Why is itimportant or interesting?Who is the review for? Practitioners?Researchers? Both?What type of literature review do you want todo?
PurposeWhat are the association between networking and innovation and what is the nature of therelationship?Where does the UK stands internationally in terms of business-to-business networking and itscontribution to innovation, with particular reference and comparisons to and between the UK, USA,France, Germany and Japan?ObjectivesThe overall objective of this review is to explore business-to-business networking activity in the UK. This can be brokendown into a number of questions:How do formal institutional mechanisms aimed at promoting business to business networking activity operate, for example:mediated by professional associations; incubators; clusters et cetera?To what extent do informal channels of networking lead to innovation, for example: communities of practice; mentoringschemes; knowledge brokerage; and entrepreneurial networks et cetera?How is networking behaviour successfully translated into tangible outcomes specifically related to innovation; including afocus on different forms of innovation, such as product and process innovation?What examples exist of network failure and inertia militating against innovation occurring within networks and explore whynetworks fail?
Information SourcesStep 2: ComprehensivesearchJournals not cited in the databasesConference papersBooksWorking papers or unpublished papersDocuments on the internetPersonal requests to knowledgeable researchersand/or practitionersReports from relevant institutions: companies,public bodies etc
Grouping keywords and applying search conventionsSimple operators include:truncationcharacters– ʻ*ʼ,ʻ?ʼ; e.g. guideline*; organi*ation,Word association – ʻwʼ or ʻnearʼ e.g. urban(w)renewal; social(near)policyBoolean Logic includes:OR e.g. guideline* OR guidance searches for either term in a documentAND e.g. guideline* AND impact* searches for both terms in a documentAND NOT e.g. guideline* AND NOT regulation* searches for documents which contain the termguidelines but not regulationsBy combining Boolean operators with parentheses complex searches can be built up:-Guideline* AND (impact OR introduct*) AND NOT regulation*This search will find all documents which include the terms guidelines and impact or introduction butnot any document which has these terms and regulationCaution! Not all databases use the same conventions
e.g.TextTextText
e.g.
Step 3: Study selection Once a body of evidence has been collated . How relevant is this to what we are seeking tounderstand or decide? How representative is this of the population thatconcerns us? How reliable, how well-founded theoretically,empirically is it?Solesbury, 2001
e.g. Criteria for including papers, based on abstracts (first filter):Located within the supply chain (or net or web) field consisting of supply chaindynamics, complexity, behaviour structure, design, risk, resilience, vulnerabilitystrategies, uncertainty, flexibility and agility.Refers to complex systems concepts as co-evolution, emergence, self-organisation,evolutionary stable strategy, chaos, uncertainty, adaptability and responsiveness.Refers to difference modelling tools and techniques as agent based approaches,system dynamics, systems thinking, systems engineering, complex systems, CAS,mainly in the context of supply chains or networks.Refers to different modeling aspects of complex systems within organizationalcontexts.
e.g. Criteria for including papers, based on full paper:Conceptual/Modelling Papers must contain:discussion of the theories, models or conceptual frameworksused to guide the development of a practical design algorithmfor understanding supply network behavioural and structuraldynamics. They should not be mere discussions of cost basedoptimization approaches or systems dynamics approachesassuming deterministic structures and optimizing flows butshould contain the dynamics of interactions between partners,negotiation mechanisms, supply chain structural evolutions,uncertainty modelling issues etc.explicit consideration of a theory, model or conceptualframework to support this.Empirical Papers had to include:experiments or cases or interventions designed to enhancethe understanding of the impact of different complexityconcepts on the supply chains, dynamics .of supply chainbehaviour, impact of structure on strategy and vice versa.construction of a framework or model for linking differentconcepts (e.g., complex systems and supply chains).what impacts the evolution or emergence of supply chainstructures, risk or vulnerability of the supply network etc. .reviews of abovea theoretical conceptual review of ideas about earlier work(e.g., different modelling techniques, qualitative orquantitative).what are the factors behind complexity of supply chains, theirdynamics, the need for long term strategies, need forresilience . what are the inhibitors of resiliencea purpose/goal (which may be identifying a gap/ demonstratinga new ideal application of existing ideas in new field etc.), 'whyyou are doing what you are doing?'Methodological Papers had to be:clear and consistent in their initial assumptions, field of study,sample etc and also in their limitations.for complex systems modelling papers, they must presentsome relevant concept in relation to disruptions in networksor interaction networkscan be conceptual or empirical or independent paperresearch design is sound and concepts are well grounded fromtheories.the results obtained make sense with respect to assumptionsand conceptual backgrounds, if not, then explanation ofdeviance.review of methodologies earlier adopted in addressing samequestion
ChecklistWas an explicit account of the theoretical framework given?Is there a succinct statement of objectives or researchquestions?Is there a clear description of the context?How was the sample chosen, is it adequate?Was there a clear description of data collection methods,were they appropriate?Was a there clear description of data analysis methods,were they appropriate?How does the research move from the raw data (numbers,quotations or examples), to an analysis and interpretationof the meaning and significance of it?Step 3: Studyevaluation
Top tip Identify 3-5 top journals in your field On the journal website – locate the‘guidance for reviewers’ (NB. Notauthors) Use these to create your quality criteria
e.g.
Analysis,Step 3: Extraction, analysis andsynthesis is the job of systematically breaking down something intoits constituent parts and describing how they relate to eachother – it is not random dissection but a methodologicalexamination.The aim is to extract key ideas, theories, concepts[arguments] and methodological assumptions from theliterature.Synthesis, is the act of making connections between the partsidentified in analysis. It is about recasting the informationinto a new or different arrangement. That arrangementshould show connections and patterns that have not beenproduced previously.
Citation information (e.g title, author, publication details)Detailed descriptive information (e.g country, context,population characteristics, location etc) Methodological information (sample and methods used) Raw data on which to conduct further statistical analysis Key findings, theories, emerging themes, perspectives, conceptsetc
e.g.
e.g.
e.g.
e.g.
e.g.
e.g.
e.g.
e.g.
e.g.
Trap 1. – a broad unfocused questionDoes team-building work?What is meant by ʻteamʼ? And what is not included as a ʻteamʼ?What kind of teams?In which particular contexts or settings?What is ʻteam buildingʼ? And what is not ʻteam buildingʼ?What does ʻworkʼ mean?ʻWorkʼ compared to any other team intervention? No intervention?What outcomes are relevant?What are the mechanisms, processes and theory which might account forpossible effects of team building on outcomes?What time periods are relevant for observing any possible effects?What about possible negative effects or harm?What types of data from what sorts of designs would in principle providegood quality, medium quality and poor quality evidence?
Trap 2. – ʻit is all aboutdatabase searchingʼGreenhalgh and Peacock (2005)Protocol driven search strategies (keywords) accounted for only 150articles out of 495 relevant papers:"systematic review of complex evidence cannot rely solely on predefined, protocol drivensearch strategies, no matter how many databases are searched. Strategies that might seemless efficient (such as browsing library shelves, asking colleagues, pursuing references thatlook interesting, and simply being alert to serendipitous discovery) may have a better yieldper hour spent and are likely to identify important sources that would otherwise be missed."Greenhalgh, T. and Peacock, R. (2005), Effectiveness and efficiency of search methods in systematic reviews of complexevidence: audit of primary sources. British Medical Journal. November 5; 331(7524): 1064–1065.
Trap 3: lack of balance between depth andbreadthDivergent approach?Convergent approach?Divergent/Convergentapproach?Scoping studySystematicreview
Trap 4. - ʻgapʼ filling What does a gap mean? NOT “No studies have researched X, in SMEs in Norway” All high quality reviews build on (or around) existing literature and (1)criticize it for being deficient in some way (e.g., for being incomplete,inadequate, inconclusive, or underdeveloped)(2)identify and challenge its underlying assumptions and based on that, formulate new and original research questions
Trap 5: Sloppy review practices forgetting to document search process in sufficient detail makingupdating the review a significant challenge,failing to document the full citation information of relevant articles sothat creating a reference list becomes a painstaking job,incorrectly referencing quotes or figures taken from papers so thatlater you have no idea where they came from,creating a disordered system for storing electronic (pdf) versions orhard copies of articles making it difficult to later find relevant papersproducing inadequate notes on a paper so that when it comes towriting the literature review you cannot remember what it was aboutthe paper that was important and are required to read the wholepaper again.
Denyer D. & Tranfield D. (2009) , Producing a litertature review, inBuchanan and Bryman (2009), SAGE Handbook of Organizational ResearchMethods (Chapter 39), SAGE Publications Ltd, London, EnglandBriner, R. and Denyer, D. (2012) SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND EVIDENCESYNTHESIS AS A PRACTICE AND SCHOLARSHIP TOOL in Rousseau(Ed.) Handbook of Evidence-Based Management: Companies, Classrooms,and Research. Oxford University PressGreenhalgh T, Peacock R. (2005), Effectiveness and efficiency of searchmethods in systematic reviews of complex evidence: audit of primarysources. BMJ. Nov 5;331(7524):1064-5. Epub 2005 Oct 17. Higgins J. and Green S. (2006), Cochrane Handbook for SystematicReviews of Interventions, The Cochrane Library 4.2.6Tranfield D., Denyer D. & Smart P. (2003) , Towards a Methodology forDeveloping Evidence-Informed Management Knowledge by Means ofSystematic Review, British Journal of Management, Volume 14 : 207-222www.linkedin.com/in/daviddenyerNHS Centre for Reviews & Dissemination (2001) , Undertakingsystematic reviews of research on effectiveness , NHS Centre for Reviewsand DisseminationRousseau D., Manning J. & Denyer D. (2008), Evidence in Managementand Organizational Science, The Academy of Management Annals, Vol.2,No.1 : 475-515Solesbury W. (2001), Evidence Based Policy: Where it came from andwhere itʼs going, ESRC UK Centre for Evidence Based Policy & PracticeLondon, England #daviddenyerHart C. (1998) , Doing a Literature Review: Releasing the Social ScienceResearch Imagination, Sage Publications Ltd, London, England FurtherinformationWallace M. and Wray A. (2006) , Critical Reading and Writing forPostgraduates, Sage Publications Ltd, London, Englanddavid.denyer@cranfield.ac.uk
Literature review papers are often highly cited! Evidence-based practice, commissioned reviews ! MSc dissertations based solely on a literature review (a project on the literature)! Advances in technologies - making it more important to keep up-to-date! The importance of literature reviews!
Additional copies of Doing Business 2010: Reforming through Difficult Times, Doing Business 2009, Doing Business 2008, Doing Business 2007: How to Reform, Doing Business in 2006: Creating Jobs, Doing Business in 2005: Removing Obstacles to Growth and Doing Business in 2004: Understanding Regulations may be purchased at www.doingbusiness.org.
HNW: Seven faces of philanthropy- none are offended 1. The Communitarian: Doing Good Makes Sense. 2. The Devout: Doing Good is God's Will. 3. The Investor: Doing Good is Good Business. 4. The Socialite: Doing Good is Fun. 5. The Altruist: Doing Good Feels Right. 6. The Repayer: Doing
Copias adicionales de Doing Business 2009, Doing Business 2008, Doing Business 2007: How to reform, Doing Business in 2006: Creating Jobs, Doing Business in 2005: Removing Obstacles to Growth, and Doing Business in 2004: Understanding Regulation pueden comprarse a través de www.doingbusiness.org.
Most researchers in the sciences do not plan how to write a literature review Graphically describes the types of literature reviews States 10 rules in writing a good literature review. Taylor-Powell, E. and Renner, M. / 2003 Analyzing Qualitative Data Qualitative Analysis or Content Analysis -- another name for Literature Review?
- English Literature 2: Medieval and Early Modern Literature - English Literature 3: The Long Nineteenth Century - English Literature 4: Literary Theory - English Literature 5: Modern and Contemporary Literature - English Research Seminar - Literature, Empire and the Postcolonial World - Texts in Focus 1 - Texts in Focus 2 5.
1 EOC Review Unit EOC Review Unit Table of Contents LEFT RIGHT Table of Contents 1 REVIEW Intro 2 REVIEW Intro 3 REVIEW Success Starters 4 REVIEW Success Starters 5 REVIEW Success Starters 6 REVIEW Outline 7 REVIEW Outline 8 REVIEW Outline 9 Step 3: Vocab 10 Step 4: Branch Breakdown 11 Step 6 Choice 12 Step 5: Checks and Balances 13 Step 8: Vocab 14 Step 7: Constitution 15
akuntansi musyarakah (sak no 106) Ayat tentang Musyarakah (Q.S. 39; 29) لًََّز ãَ åِاَ óِ îَخظَْ ó Þَْ ë Þٍجُزَِ ß ا äًَّ àَط لًَّجُرَ íَ åَ îظُِ Ûاَش
S1 Akuntansi Pendidikan Profesi: PPAk S2 Magister Science, Magister Terapan S3 Ilmu Akuntansi Pendidikan IAI: KAPd. dan KASP Asosiasi Profesi Akuntansi: IAPI dan IAMI Asosiasi Profesi lain terkait akuntansi dan Internasional –Internal Auditor, CISA, ACCA, CMA, CIMA, CPA Negara lain Asosiasi Profesi PPAJP Kemenkeu Kemendiknas - DIKTI BNSP OJK Internasional .
