Methodology of Writing Literature Review on Management and Business: Digest of Overseas Highly-Cited Articles
https://doi.org/10.21686/2413-2829-2021-6-144-157
Abstract
The goal of the research is to elaborate methodology how to systematize findings in the field of management published during previous years. Special attention is paid to typology of reviews. In this case the author distinguished systematic (meta-analysis as its variant), semi-systematic, integrative and other types of reviews. The article traces the origin of literature reviews starting from medical science to their use in articles concerning management in business. The author described difficulties of conducting meta-analysis and systematic analysis on materials of research on management and showed several methods of presenting results of systematic review of literature. Review articles can both rely on proofs obtained in previous quality (or mixed) methods of research and include quantitative data. Orientation to author is also possible. The most widely used type is a subject review, where researcher describes publications fostering the development of general comprehension of the concept or phenomenon being of interest, including for the future research. The choice of the review type and methodology of its conducting is determined by the data that should be analyzed. Authors should follow the chosen methodology.
About the Author
I. V. Denisov
Plekhanov Russian University of Economics
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Igor V. Denisov Doctor of Economics, Assistant Professor, Head of the Department for Theory of Management and Business-Technologies
36 Stremyanny Lane, Moscow, 117997
SPIN 6488-1882
References
1. Booth A., Sutton A., Papaioannou D. Systematic Approaches to a Successful Literature Review. New York, 2016.
2. Briner R. B., Denyer D. Systematic Review and Evidence Synthesis as a Practice and Scholarship Tool. Handbook of Evidence-Based Management: Companies, Classrooms and Research, 2012, pp. 112–129.
3. Denyer D., Tranfield D. Producing a Systematic Review. Buchanan D., Bryman A. (eds.) The Sage Handbook of Organizational Research Methods. London, 2009, pp. 671–689.
4. Durach C. F., Kembro J., Wieland A. A New Paradigm for Systematic Literature Reviews in Supply Chain Management. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 2017, Vol. 53, No. 4, pp. 67–85.
5. Hoon C., Baluch A. M. The Role of Dialectical Interrogation in Review Studies: Theorizing from what we see rather than what we have already seen. Journal of Management Studies, 2020, Vol. 57, No. 6, pp. 1246–1271.
6. Langley A. Strategies for Theorizing from Process Data. Academy of Management Review, 1999, Vol. 24, No. 4, pp. 691–710.
7. LePine J. A., King A. W. (eds.). Editors' Comments: Developing Novel Theoretical Insight from Reviews of Existing Theory and Research. Academy of Management Review, 2010, Vol. 35, No. 4, pp. 506–509.
8. Liberati A., Altman D. G., Tetzlaff J., Mulrow C., Gøtzsche P. C., Ioannidis J. P. A., Clarke M., Devereaux P. J., Kleijnen J., Moher D. The PRISMA Statement for Reporting Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Studies that Evaluate Health Care Interventions: Explanation and Elaboration. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 2009, Vol. 62, No. 10, pp. e1–e34.
9. Linnenluecke M. K., Marrone M., Singh A. K. Conducting Systematic Literature Reviews and Bibliometric Analyses. Australian Journal of Management, 2020, Vol. 45, No. 2, pp. 175–194.
10. Mariani M., Borghi M. Industry 4.0: A Bibliometric Review of its Managerial Intellectual Structure and Potential Evolution in the Service Industries. Technological Forecasting and Social Changem, 2019, No. 149, p. 119752.
11. Moher D., Liberati A., Tetzlaff J., Altman D. G. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: the PRISMA Statement. PLoS medicine, 2009, Vol. 6, No. 7, p. e1000097.
12. Piccarozzi M., Aquilani B., Gatti C. Industry 4.0 in Management Studies: A Systematic Literature Review. Sustainability, 2018, Vol. 10, No. 10, p. 3821.
13. Post C. et al. Advancing Theory with Review Articles. Journal of Management Studies, 2020, Vol. 57, No. 2, pp. 351–376.
14. Shepherd D. A., Suddaby R. Theory Building: A Review and Integration. Journal of Management, 2017, Vol. 43, No. 1, pp. 59–86.
15. Snyder H. Literature Review as a Research Methodology: An Overview and Guidelines. Journal of Business Research, 2019, Vol. 104, pp. 333–339.
16. Torraco R. J. Writing Integrative Literature Reviews: Using the Past and Present to Explore the Future. Human Resource Development Review, 2016, Vol. 15, No. 4, pp. 404–428.
17. Tranfield D., Denyer D., Smart P. Towards a Methodology for Developing Evidence-Informed Management Knowledge by Means of Systematic Review. British Journal of Management, 2003, Vol. 14, No. 3, pp. 207–222.
18. Vieira E., Gomes J. A Comparison of Scopus and Web of Science for a Typical University. Scientometrics, 2009, Vol. 81, No. 2, pp. 587–600.
19. Weick K. E. Theory Construction as Disciplined Imagination. Academy of Management Review, 1989, Vol. 14, No. 4, pp. 516–531.
20. Wong G. et al. RAMESES Publication Standards: Meta-Narrative Reviews. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 2013, Vol. 69, No. 5, pp. 987–1004.
21. Zahra S. A., Sapienza H. J., Davidsson P. Entrepreneurship and Dynamic Capabilities: A Review, Model and Research Agenda. Journal of Management Studies, 2006, Vol. 43, No. 4, pp. 917–955.
Review
For citations:
Denisov I.V. Methodology of Writing Literature Review on Management and Business: Digest of Overseas Highly-Cited Articles. Vestnik of the Plekhanov Russian University of Economics. 2021;(6):144-157. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.21686/2413-2829-2021-6-144-157
Views:
675
Email this article 