Day 3: An ‘inquiry-driven’

understanding of literature
reviews
DR KATERINA NICOLOPOULOU, SENIOR LECTURER,
HUNTER CENTRE FOR ENTREPRENEURSHIP
Key references used
1. Hart, C (1998) Doing a literature review: releasing the social science research imagination,
Sage Publications
2. Webster, J and Watson, R (2002) Analyzing the past to prepare for the future: writing a
literature review, MIS Quarterly Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. xiii-xxiii/June 2002
3. Denyer, D and Tranfield, D. (2006) Using qualitative research synthesis to build an actionable
knowledge base, Management Decision, Vol. 44, No. 2, pp.213-227.
4. Jesson, J, Lydia Matheson, Fiona M Lacey (2011), Doing Your Literature Review: Traditional
and Systematic Techniques, Sage Publications
5. Rowley J., and Slack, F., (2004) Conducting a Literature Review, Management research news,
volume 27, no 6, pp 31-39
What is needed for a literature review (Hart, 1998)

Breadth, depth, rigour, consistency, effectiveness

Integration: between theories, concepts and experience
Hart (1998) refers to applying a certain method from one area to
another or one knowledge insight from one area to another
Why do we need literature reviews as
researchers? (Hart, 1998)

A systematic way to present findings from literature-based

research and a pathway from past to the future
Showcasing the researcher’s capacity to interprete, analyse,
synthesise relevant literature
A way to identify the ‘research gap’ for the thesis
What is the role of the review in the thesis?

• Links to theoretical framework

• Links to research questions
• Links to analysis and discussion
• Links to conclusions and recommendations
What is in the review? (Webster and Watson,2002)

A review can be:

Concept centric
Author-centric
Based on ‘unit of analysis’
How much reading and of what kind?

When is enough, enough?

What should I be reading?
The reader should be able to see an argument that later
develops throughout the thesis……not only an annotated
bibliography style of narrative where conceptual
connections are missing
‘Under currents’ behind a literature
review
The school of thought
The theoretical tradition
The methodological tradition
The epistemological tradition
The key lines of argument……….

However, with time some of this knowledge becomes

tacit….as you are becoming an expert in your field of study
How do we move from a literature review to theory
development and contribution? (Webster and
Watson, 2002)

 A literature review can result in a conceptual model with

supporting propositions to be tested
 In order to better support theory development, a review of
empirical studies could be included in the literature review
 The scope of the reviews can also include the key theories
which have been used in a field
What is a good question to start a
literature review?

A good question is one that you are really interested in

or are passionate about.
HOWEVER-
You will have to go through substantial ‘narrowing
down’ of your topic, and identify whether you are
interested in the ‘historical development’ of the field,
or ‘the key contemporary issues and challenges’ as
ways to enter the field
Strategies for conducting literature
reviews
 Where to start?

 Key researchers in your field

 Their networks
 The conferences they attend
 The (top) journals they publish
Web of science and Google scholar collaboration (youtube)
in
 The key literature review pieces
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q4v5j96SKHc&feature=youtu.be? in related fields
utm_source=web&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=gs-page
 They key references they cite
Challenges of inter/cross-disciplinary
problematisation

We are often called to work between/ across

rather than within their boundaries
Inevitably, inter-disciplinary research
problematisation is pluralistic.
What do we mean by ‘pluralistic’
research?

Pluralism became a response in terms of theorising in

organisational studies, management and strategy, and found its
expression in institutional, strategic and identity-driven
conceptualisations (Glynn et al, 2000).
In addition to that, pluralism has also been conceptualised by
authors such as Aram (2004), who identified the existence of
several ‘interstitial’ concepts with roots in the ‘in-between’
spaces.
 What are the factors that facilitated the
growth of such ‘pluralism’?
Increased emphasis on output, measurable international
standards and impact

BUT also-
-increased international collaborations, joint PhD -Looking for impact on:
programs  Practitioners
 Policy-makers
Collaborative inquiry across disciplines, departments,  Research development
institutions  Societal, economic,
technological, cultural
domains
(Camarinha-Matos and Afshamanesh, 2007).
Is all research ‘pluralistic’?

…………….inter-disciplinarity, cross-disciplinarity, trans-

disciplinarity, multi-disciplinarity, intra-disciplinarity………….

All these distinctions, which are summarised by Aram (2004),

incorporate conceptualisations of knowledge that ‘unify’
science by going beyond distinctions which are artificially
imposed by disciplinary divisions; additionally- they are
cooperative in their disposition , and often aim at problem-
solving in terms of the societal impact and practical
application of knowledge.
An example of a paradox from real
world…..
Economically speaking- and specifically in terms of business
sustainability, we are living between:

-On the one hand- Crisis (‘the West’)

-On the other- Opportunity (‘emergent economies’)

What are the models, theories and methods to study these

paradoxes and what about their validity over time?
Social entrepreneurship as an example of
‘pluralistic’ research
 Let’s look in particular, into ‘Social Entrepreneurship’ as a
field of application of pluralism in research
Social entrepreneurship has developed from within a
fundamental ‘paradox’ of focusing on enterprises with a social
(or environmental) mission, which can, nonetheless, be
financially sustainable

……………….the following are some hypothetical scenarios……….

Where to start?
‘ I am interested in studying the role of leadership in social
entrepreneurship. I feel that it is the individual leaders who, via their
values and capabilities can bring changes to the economy by creating
enterprises that are financially sustainable and socially meaningful, at
the same time. In my neighbourhood, I have seen a social enterprise
which provides training and employment for ex-convicts and the
strong leadership of the founder has made this a success; yet, I have
found 5 published articles in top journals that argue that the topic of
leadership in social entrepreneurship is saturated and that the
literature should now engage with new issues such as context analysis,
or performance measurement for social entrepreneurship’
Choice of theory?
‘I am interested in looking into the topic of networks around
social enterprises and the ways that social entrepreneurs
develop them, as part of their strategies for enterprise
growth; should I look into stakeholder theory, actor-network
theory, resource-based view of the firm, firm’s capabilities, or
lean start-ups theories in order to explain the phenomenon-
in- focus’?
Paradigm incommensurability?
‘I am finding too many contradictions in the theories of social
entrepreneurship, and it is really difficult to build a strong model
based on hypotheses to drive my research’
Which level of analysis?
‘I am trying to define my topic and I am
thinking of looking at successful social
enterprises in relation to their context, in
order to understand how they interact
with it, but I am also interested in the
role of the individual social entrepreneur,
whom I consider indispensable in terms
of their success. What should I do’?
Session 1- Groupwork task
You have been allocated into groups of 4 participants and each group has been given 2 paper to read
All papers are coming from journals which focus primarily on articles that review literature on a given field
Please conduct an analysis and prepare a poster presentation about the main features of the literature reviews
that you have already read:
A. What is the remit of the literature review?
B. Does it respond well to the initial research question?
C. What are the ways in which the author conducted the literature review? Any specific methods that have been
explicitly used?
D. Would you say that the way that the literature review was conducted was comprehensive? Are any elements
left out? Could something have been done in a different way?
E. Do you feel that the literature reviews you read contribute to the field of knowledge that they aspire to? Is there
a clear ‘gap’ that they are addressing, what do we learn, and what is left for future research
(theoretical/empirical)?
The papers will be discussed in terms of problematisation of the topic in-question, research aims and objectives,
identification of gaps in the literature and contribution to the field of study.
Session 2: Learning points
What are the trends that you saw in the articles that you have reviewed?

Can we talk about different ways to do the literature review? Different

degrees of structure/different outcomes? What were those outcomes?
Were they convincing?

How could those differences impact the development of the thesis?

 Continuum of styles and methods for
literature reviews (Jesson et al, 2011)
Narrative Systematic and structured
Variety of styles Rigorous method
No defined Meta-analysis
method

Systematic literature reviews with explicit

and replicable criteria are often done in
disciplines where insights need to be build
For example in various
between development of theory and
practice medical sub-fields, the
Cochrane protocol is used
Checklist for systematic reviews
An a priori study protocol
An a priori hypothesis
A detailed description of the literature search used
Specified inclusion and exclusion criteria
Checking for possible heterogeneity between the
studies considered
Checking for limitations
(Ressing, M., Blettner, M. and Klug, S (2009))
Systematic review process
(Jesson et al, 2011; p 12-13)

Defining terms (inclusion) and studies that were not to be

included (exclusion)
Using keywords to identify and collect all existing studies,
search bibliographic databases and follow citations
Screening titles and abstracts
Reducing data, generated categories and producing final
interpretation criteria
Meta-analysis as a method

Quantitative methods for conducting literature

reviews are usually conducted in order to
minimize the possibility that conclusions from
a review impose subjective interpretations that
are not justified (Guzzo et al, 1987)
 Narrative reviews
 Narrative reviews provide deep and and rich
information; synthesis in this style of reviews can
accommodate differences between the questions,
research designs and the contexts of different
studies (Cassell and Symon, 1994)
Session 3 Groupwork task
In groups, choose a topic that you like:

Try to agree on an interesting angle that could be a ‘research gap’

Where do you start? What is your strategy? What kind of
literature review would you need?
Alternatively, would you like to discuss YOUR own literature
review with the group and try to get an alternative point of view?
Present your poster