An examination on how the mind mapping-based
literature review (MMBLR) approach contributes to managerial intellectual
learning (MIL)
Joseph Kim-keung Ho
Independent Trainer
Hong Kong, China
Abstract:
The
topics of the mind mapping-based literature review (MMBLR) approach and
managerial intellectual learning (MIL) are related, as claimed by their
literature. This paper makes an intellectual endeavor to clarify explicitly how
the MMBLR approach contributes to MIL. The intellectual exercise makes use of
concepts and findings from the existing works on the MMBLR approach and MIL. Such
clarification contributes to the theoretical development in MIL and the MMBLR
approach.
Key
words: managerial intellectual learning,
literature review, mind map, the mind mapping-based literature review (MMBLR)
approach
Please cite the paper as Ho, J.K.K. 2016. “An examination on how the
mind mapping-based literature review (MMBLR) approach contributes to managerial
intellectual learning” Joseph KK Ho
e-resources blog November 6 (url address: http://josephho33.blogspot.hk/2016/11/an-examination-on-how-mind-mapping.html).
1.
Introduction
Managerial intellectual learning
(MIL) is a subject originating from the Multi-perspective, Systems-based (MPSB)
Research. MIL is about multi-perspective, systems-based learning on all sorts
of management subjects, e.g., logistics management, information systems
management and management accounting, etc. At the outset of launching MIL as a
research venture, it is clear that literature review plays a core role in MIL.
Some survey findings on literature review practices in Hong Kong were made and
examined in relations to MIL (Ho, 2015). More recent study on literature review
is mainly directed at a specific literature review approach, namely, the mind
mapping-based literature review (MMBLR) approach (Ho, 2016). In this paper, the
writer makes an attempt to summarize the main ideas from Ho (2015) and more
specifically examines how the MMBLR approach can contributes to MIL. Such an
intellectual endeavor offers academic value to the topics of MIL and the MMBLR
approach by developing new ideas on these two topics.
2.
Literature review practices for MIL
The topic of managerial
intellectual learning as proposed by Ho is not simply about learning academic
management knowledge for managerial practices; it also encompasses studying
academic management knowledge with a set of key multi-perspective, systems-based
(MPSB) concepts that are grounded on critical systems thinking (see the Multi-perspective, Systems-based
Research and the Managerial
Intellectual Learning Facebook pages). The main conceptual elements of MIL
are portrayed in the MIL process model (Ho, 2014) shown in Figure 1:
Referring to Figure 1, the MIL
capability-building mechanism (MILCBM) covers the learning competence and
motivation of the managerial intellectual learner. The MIL process is composed
of four inter-related phases, namely, Data Management (Phase 1), Absorbed
reading (Phase 2), The MPSB knowledge compilation (Phase 3) and Practice-based intellectual learning (Phase
*). Drawing on the writer’s experience
on teaching the subject of Research Methods and dissertation project supervisions
for business management students at both the undergraduate and postgraduate
levels, he examined literature review practices[1]
and related them to the MIL process (Ho, 2015). It was argued that the
literature review practices, both for doing dissertation projects and for
continuous professional development, are chiefly done in Phases 1 and 2 in
terms of the integrated MIL process view (re: Figure 1). Subsequently, learning
gained via MIL Phases 1 and 2 is able to inform MIL Phase 3 and Phase*, with
Phase 3 specifically employing the key MPSB concepts and Phase* being done
field (e.g., workplace) and experience-based. The following intellectual points
are now drawn from Ho (2015) and introduced to the readers to facilitate the
ensuing discussion here, especially on how mind mapping based-literature review
contributes to MIL.
Briefly, Ho (2015) discerns two
categories of literature review purposes:
Category 1 (LRC-1): To
find out what is known
about an area of study, what theories and concepts are relevant to an area of
study, what research methods have been employed, what topics of controversies
are present, and what knowledge gaps exist in an area of study;
Category 2 (LRC-2): To enable a researcher to
increase theoretical sensitivity to an area of study, formulate, refine and
justify research questions.
Moreover, Ho (2015) identifies 4
recommended literature review practices from the academic literature:
Recommended practice 1 (LRRP-1): to adopt a systematic review with explicit procedures
to reduce biases and promote thoroughness;
Recommended practice 2 (LRRP-2): to adopt a “less focused” review based on
interpretivism to obtain an “initial impression” on an area of study;
Recommended practice 3 (LRRP-3): to adopt an appropriate literature review approach
based primarily on inductive or deductive research concerns;
Recommended practice 4 (LRRP-4): to conduct literature review throughout the
dissertation project life-cycle.
These intellectual points are
recapped from Ho (2015) as they are relevant to our subsequent discussion in
this paper, see also appendix 1 for the survey question list
and basic survey statistics. Besides, a
number of Facebook-based survey findings were reported in Ho (2015). They are
Survey finding 1 (SF1): the majority
of survey respondents have learned or are learning the literature review
subject;
Survey finding 2 (SF2): the majority
of survey respondents feel that the literature review subject is difficult to
understand;
Survey finding 3 (SF3): the majority
of survey respondents feel that academic journal articles are difficult to
understand;
Survey finding 4 (SF4): the majority
of survey respondents make use of the university e-libraries to access academic
journal articles;
Survey finding 5 (SF5): the majority
of survey respondents feel that academic journal articles are useful for
literature review;
Survey finding 6 (SF6): the majority
of survey respondents feel that reading academic journal articles are able to
improve their professional competence;
Survey finding 7 (SF7): a slight majority
of survey respondents have access to academic journal libraries when they are
not studying for a formal education programme;
Survey finding 8 (SF8): the majority
of survey respondents are interested in improving their literature review
skills in the near future;
Survey finding 9 (SF9): survey
respondents in different fields of education share similar perception on the
difficulty to learn the literature review subject;
Survey finding 10 (SF10): stronger perceived
difficulty to understand academic journal articles reduces perceived usefulness
of academic journal articles for literature review;
Survey finding 11 (SF11): higher
perceived relevance of reading academic journal articles to improve
professional competence increases interest in improving literature review
skills;
Survey finding 12 (SF12): Improved
ease of access to academic journal libraries increases interest in improving
literature review skill;
These findings cover MIL components
of (i) infrastructural support (e.g., SFs 4, 5, 7 and 12), (ii) capability
(e.g., SFs1, 9, and 10) and (iii) interest (e.g., SFs 6, 8, 10, and 11) in
intellectual learning as well as (iv) experience outcomes in intellectual
learning (SFs 2, 5, and 9), all of which are inter-related. Items (ii) [capability] and (iii) [interest]
belong to the MILCBM while item (iv) [experience outcomes in intellectual
learning] is associated to the feedback loop in the integrated MIL view
model (re: Figure 1).
In sum, Ho (2015) sheds light on the
role of literature review practices in MIL.
The intellectual points raised in Ho (2015) are also able to inform the
next topic, i.e., how mind mapping-based literature review contributes to MIL.
3.
Basic ideas of the MMBLR approach
The mind mapping-based
literature review (MMBLR) approach was developed by this writer this year (Ho,
2016; Literature on mind mapping Facebook
page). It makes use of mind mapping as a complementary literature review
exercise (see the Literature on literature review Facebook
page for further information on literature review). The MMBLR pproach is
made up of two steps. Step 1 is a thematic analysis on the literature of the
topic chosen for study. Step 2 makes use of the findings from step 1 to produce
a complementary mind map. The MMBLR approach is a relatively straightforward
and brief exercise. The approach is not particularly original since the idea of
using mind maps in literature review has been well recognized in the mind mapping
literature. The approach is also an interpretive exercise in the sense that
different reviewers with different research interest and intellectual
background inevitably will select different ideas, facts and findings in their
thematic analysis (i.e., step 1 of the MMBLR approach). Other than that, to
conduct the approach, the reviewer needs to perform a literature search
beforehand. Apparently, what a reviewer gathers from a literature search
depends on what library facility, including e-library, is available to the
reviewer.
4.
How the MMBLR approach contributes to MIL
The role of literature review in
MIL has been explained in Ho (2015). To clarify
how the MMBLR approach contributes to MIL, the writer utilizes some of the
points raised by Ho (2015) on literature review. Specifically, these points are
incorporated into Tables 1 and 2 for an evaluation of the MMBLR approach.
Table 1: How the MMBLR approach contributes to the
objectives of literature review
|
Categories of literature review
objectives
|
Role of the MMBLR approach
|
|
Category 1 (LRC-1): To find out what is known about an area of study, what theories
and concepts are relevant to an area of study, what research methods have
been employed, what topics of controversies are present, and what knowledge
gaps exist in an area of study.
|
As a preliminary literature review, the MMBLR
approach is highly relevant to achieve this category of objective by
identifying and grouping useful points gathered from the literature review (Step 1 of the MMBLR approach), which
are subsequently incorporated into a companion mind map (Step 2 of the MMBLR approach).
|
|
Category 2 (LRC-2): To enable a researcher to increase theoretical sensitivity
to an area of study, formulate, refine and justify research questions.
|
The MMBLR approach does not directly guide the
formulation of research questions; nevertheless, it builds up the reviewer’s
intellectual strength and understanding to do so via the learning gained from
the employment of the MMBLR approach.
|
Table 2: How the MMBLR approach contributes to the recommended
literature review practices
|
Recommended practices of
literature review
|
Role of the MMBLR approach
|
|
Recommended practice 1 (LRRP-1): to adopt a systematic review with explicit
procedures to reduce biases and promote thoroughness.
|
The MMBLR approach encourages a thorough way to
review the academic literature, thus also reducing biases. Nevertheless, it
admits that the approach is interpretive in nature. It aspires to be
vigorously subjective.
|
|
Recommended practice 2 (LRRP-2): to adopt a “less focused” review based on
interpretivism to obtain an “initial impression” on an area of study.
|
The MMBLR approach is exploratory in nature; thus it
also explicitly endorses a “less focused” literature review.
|
|
Recommended practice 3 (LRRP-3): to adopt an appropriate literature review approach
based primarily on inductive or deductive research concerns.
|
The research concerns of the reviewer, e.g.,
inductive or deductive, inevitably influence the reviewer’s actual MMBLR
efforts, since these research concerns sensitize the researcher in the
selection and grouping of points from the academic literature.
|
|
Recommended practice 4 (LRRP-4): to conduct literature review throughout the
dissertation project life-cycle.
|
The MMBLR approach as reported in Ho (2016) is
mainly employed in preliminary literature review endeavors; it is quite
feasible to employ the MMBLR approach in later stage of a dissertation
project. The MMBLR approach is flexible enough to do so.
|
By clarifying the role of the
MMBLR approach in addressing the objectives of literature review (i.e., LRCs
1-2) and in supporting the recommended practices (i.e., SFs 1-4), the question
of how the MMBLR approach contributes to MIL is also answered. In this discussion,
while the methodological relevance of the MMBLR approach to MIL is made clear,
it should also be pointed out that, as a literature review approach, the MMBLR
approach is not mandatorily locked into the MIL framework. Reviewers who are
not doing MIL can also find the MMBLR approach potent for guiding literature
review. Finally, from the MIL perspective, the set of points identified from
the MMBLR approach can be further evaluated using the key MPSB concepts as an
MIL Phase 3 (the MPSB knowledge compilation) activity.
5.
Concluding remarks
By building on the existing
literature of MIL and the MMBLR approach, the writer has clarified how the
MMBLR approach contributes to MIL. This is achieved in this paper in the form
of an intellectual exercise. Further research works, both theoretical and
empirical ones, on this topic, are required to make further theoretical
progress on the two related topics of MIL and the MMBLR approach.
Bibliography
Ho, J.K.K. 2014. “A Research Note on the
Managerial Intellectual Learning Capability-Building Mechanism (MILCBM)” European Academic Research 2(2) May:
2029-2047.
Ho, J.K.K. 2015. “Examining Literature Review
Practices and Concerns Based on Managerial Intellectual Learning Thinking” International Journal of
Interdisciplinary Research in Science, Society and Culture 1(1): 7-20. (url
address:http://ijirssc.in/site/Archive_read.php?i=8).
Ho, J.K.K. 2016. Mind mapping for literature review – a ebook, October 7 (url
address: http://josephkkho.blogspot.hk/2016/10/mind-mapping-for-literature-review-ebook.html).
Literature on literature review Facebook page, maintained by Joseph, K.K. Ho (url address: https://www.facebook.com/literature.literaturereview/).
Literature on mind mapping Facebook page, maintained by Joseph, K.K. Ho (url address: https://www.facebook.com/literature.mind.mapping/).
Managerial intellectual learning Facebook page, maintained by Joseph, K.K. Ho (url address: https://www.facebook.com/managerial.intellectual.learning/).
The Multi-perspective, Systems-based Research Facebook page, maintained by Joseph, K.K. Ho (url address: https://www.facebook.com/multiperspective.systemsbased.research/).
Appendix
Appendix 1: The Facebook-based survey questions (14
questions) (From: January 23 to 30, 2015)
|
Survey questions
|
Survey statistics
|
|
Question
1: What is your gender?
|
Male:
57 (44.5%)
Female:
71 (55.5%)
|
|
Question
2: What is your age?
|
18
to 27: 6 (4.7%)
28
to 37: 60 (46.9%)
38
to 47: 52 (40.6%)
48
to 57: 10 (7.8%)
58
to 67: 0 (0.0%)
68
or above: 0 (0.0%)
|
|
Question
3: What is your education background?
|
Not
yet a degree-holder: 34 (26.6%)
Finished
University Undergraduate Degree study: 70 (54.7%)
Finished
Master Degree study: 22 (17.2%)
Finished
Ph.D. Degree study (or equivalent): 2 (1.6%)
|
|
Question
4: What is your field of education?
|
Business
related: 97 (75.8%)
Non-business
related: 14 (10.9%)
Both
business and non-business related: 15 (11.7%)
Unclassified:
2 (1.6%)
|
|
Question
5: Did you (or are you) learn the subject of “Literature Review” in Research
Methods in your formal education?
|
Yes:
86 (67.7%)
No:
33 (26.0%)
Cannot
remember: 8 (6.3%)
|
|
Question
6: Do you (or did you) feel that you have difficulty to understand the
subject of Literature Review during your study of Research Methods (or other
courses) for your formal education?
|
Yes,
I strongly feel so: 24 (18.8%)
I
have this feeling mildly: 58 (45.3%)
I
feel it is not difficult to understand: 30 (23.4%)
No
feeling at all/ Not applicable: 16 (12.5%)
|
|
Question
7: Do you (or did you) feel that academic journal articles are difficult to
understand during your study for your formal education?
|
Yes,
I strongly feel so: 26 (20.3%)
I
have this feeling mildly: 60 (46.9%)
I
feel it is not difficult to understand, in general: 35 (27.3%)
No
feeling at all: 7 (5.5%)
|
|
Question
8: Do you (or did you) use the University e-library to access academic
journal articles to do your course assignments and dissertation projects?
|
Yes,
I do: 93 (72.7%)
No,
I don’t: 31 (24.2%)
Cannot
remember: 4 (3.1%)
|
|
Question
9: Do you (or did you) feel that academic articles are useful for literature
review?
|
Yes,
very useful: 65 (50.8%)
It
is basically useful: 47 (36.7%)
Not
useful: 3 (2.3%)
No
idea: 13 (10.2%)
|
|
Question
10: Do you (or did you) feel that reading academic journal articles is able
to improve your professional competence?
|
Yes,
I strongly feel so: 47 (36.7%)
I
have this feeling mildly: 59 (46.1%)
I
don’t think so: 16 (12.5%)
No
idea: 6 (4.7%)
|
|
Question
11: Do you have access to academic journal libraries (not Google scholar)
when you are not studying for a formal education program?
|
Yes,
and convenient: 23 (18.0%)
Yes,
but not convenient: 30 (23.4%)
Not
able to access at all: 61 (47.7%)
No
idea: 14 (10.9%)
|
|
Question
12: Are you interested in improving your literature review skill in the near
future?
|
Yes,
I am strongly interested: 41 (32.5%)
I
am mildly interested: 46 (36.5%)
No,
not interested: 28 (22.2%)
No
idea: 11 (8.7%)
|
|
Question
13: Do you feel that you are able to improve your literature review skill
without reading academic journal articles?
|
Yes,
I strongly fee so: 13 (10.2%)
I
have this feeling mildly: 17 (13.3%)
No,
I do not feel this way: 75 (58.6%)
No
idea: 23 (18.0%)
|
|
Question
14: Do you enjoy reading academic journal articles?
|
Yes,
I enjoy it very much: 9 (7.0%)
I
do, basically: 58 (45.3%)
No,
I don’t: 51 (39.8%)
No
feeling: 10 (7.8%)
|
[1]
Readers are referred to the Literature
on literature review Facebook page for further information on the topic of literature review.
pdf version can be found at: https://www.academia.edu/29697499/An_examination_on_how_the_mind_mapping-based_literature_review_MMBLR_approach_contributes_to_managerial_intellectual_learning_MIL_
ReplyDelete