Advancing literature review methodology through rigour, generativity, scope and transparency

Fan, Di; Breslin, Dermot; Callahan, Jamie L.; Iszatt‐White, Marian

doi:10.1111/ijmr.12291

Cited by 139 publications

(107 citation statements)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

100

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Snyder (2019) also reaffirmed this rationale, pointing out that review articles have the power to answer research questions beyond that which can be achieved in a single study. Ultimately, readers of review articles stand to gain a one-stop, state-of-the-art synthesis (Lim et al 2022a;Popli et al 2022) that encapsulates critical insights through the process of re-interpreting, re-organizing, and re-connecting a body knowledge (Fan et al 2022).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Literature reviews as independent studies: guidelines for academic practice

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Review articles or literature reviews are a critical part of scientific research. While numerous guides on literature reviews exist, these are often limited to the philosophy of review procedures, protocols, and nomenclatures, triggering non-parsimonious reporting and confusion due to overlapping similarities. To address the aforementioned limitations, we adopt a pragmatic approach to demystify and shape the academic practice of conducting literature reviews. We concentrate on the types, focuses, considerations, methods, and contributions of literature reviews as independent, standalone studies. As such, our article serves as an overview that scholars can rely upon to navigate the fundamental elements of literature reviews as standalone and independent studies, without getting entangled in the complexities of review procedures, protocols, and nomenclatures.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Literature reviews as independent studies: guidelines for academic practice

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…To develop an integrative RM competence framework, we conducted an integrative-systematic review (Fan et al, 2022) of articles on managerial competences across the ethics, responsibility, and sustainability disciplines. A systematic review offers the high level of comprehensiveness we were looking for, spanning ERS competences for management practices ranging from specialized ERS management and generic mainstream management to management specializations and sector-specific management practices, across a variety of disciplinary journal communities (see Table 2).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Interdisciplinary Responsible Management Competence Framework: An Integrative Review of Ethics, Responsibility, and Sustainability Competences

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

At the centre of responsible management (RM) learning is the development of managerial competence for ethics, responsibility, and sustainability (ERS). Important contributions have been made from each: the ethics, responsibility, and sustainability disciplines. However, we are yet to integrate these disciplinary contributions into a comprehensive interdisciplinary RM competence framework that corresponds to the interdisciplinary nature of RM challenges. We address this priority in this paper and report on the findings of an integrative structured literature review of 224 management competence articles across the ERS disciplines. Our thematic template analysis has produced an interdisciplinary RM competence framework of three layers of personal, behavioural, and intellectual competences and independent and interdependent competence dimensions. The resulting 3 × 2 competence matrix framework accommodates 33 interdisciplinary ERS competence themes and 90 subthemes in the six competence domains of being and becoming, acting and interacting, knowing and thinking. To the RM discussion, we contribute an interdisciplinary competence framework that enables the development of responsible managers who tackle the inherently interdisciplinary issues of RM. To the competence discussion, we contribute the interdependent competence dimension and future research directions through the lens of response-ability.JBE Section: Business Ethics Learning and Education

show abstract

“…To address the research questions, a SLR methodology was adopted. This methodology was chosen following guidance from Fan et al, (2022) who compare and contrast systematic, narrative, integrative and meta-analysis reviews. According to Fan et al, (2022), narrative and integrative reviews are suited to more established areas with very large literature bases, where they can pull on 'representative' literature.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This methodology was chosen following guidance from Fan et al, (2022) who compare and contrast systematic, narrative, integrative and meta-analysis reviews. According to Fan et al, (2022), narrative and integrative reviews are suited to more established areas with very large literature bases, where they can pull on 'representative' literature. A limitation of these approaches is that narrative and integrative reviews introduce researcher bias.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Supply chains and ecosystems for servitization: a systematic review and future research agenda

Davies

Liu²,

Cooper³

et al. 2022

IMR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeRecent research has recognised the importance of supply chains and ecosystems as key drivers of successful servitization strategies, especially in the context of inter-organisational relations (IOR). The body of knowledge has, however, become increasingly fragmented and diverse due to different disciplinary roots of both servitization and IOR research. The purpose of this paper is to take stock of current knowledge and to generate a set of future research directions for servitization-related supply chain and ecosystem research.Design/methodology/approachA systematic review methodology was applied. A thematic analysis was conducted on a sample of 34 papers in the period 2010–2021 to identify the key themes within the servitization-related supply chain and ecosystem literature.FindingsThe review revealed a limited, but expanding, knowledge base for servitization-related supply chain and ecosystem research. The findings provide insight into current trends across four thematic areas: theoretical orientation, methodological approaches, research context and research content. Within these themes, it was found that four main areas of research content have been studied (supplier relationships, risk perception and uncertainty, capability development and resource integration), with most research adopting case-based methodologies within three main industrial contexts: manufacturing, industrial and software. Finally, a broad range of theoretical orientations have led to an increasingly fragmented and diverse literature base.Originality/valueThis study is the first to review servitization-related supply chains and ecosystems. It contributes insights through an IOR lens to categorise and organise a core set of themes and concepts for servitization-related supply chain and ecosystems research. It identifies research gaps within the extant literature and presents a set of future research directions.

show abstract

Advancing literature review methodology through rigour, generativity, scope and transparency

Cited by 139 publications

References 36 publications

Literature reviews as independent studies: guidelines for academic practice

Literature reviews as independent studies: guidelines for academic practice

The Interdisciplinary Responsible Management Competence Framework: An Integrative Review of Ethics, Responsibility, and Sustainability Competences

Supply chains and ecosystems for servitization: a systematic review and future research agenda

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About