A note on the literature review task to examine research gaps: for MBA students

A note on the literature review task to examine research gaps: for MBA students (information from perplexity.ai)

My question : "Regarding MBA dissertation projects, one of the main topics is on literature review on research gaps on a specific research topic, e.g. on entrepreneurial journey or organizational resilience. Please offer 4 main advice on how to effectively carry out this kind of literature review tasks."

The reply: "For MBA dissertations, an effective gap-focused literature review needs a clear search strategy, critical synthesis, and an explicit link to your research question. Here are four focused pieces of advice.

1. Start with a sharp focus and search plan

• Define your scope tightly: population (e.g. first‑generation entrepreneurs in HK), context (sector/region), and key constructs (e.g. opportunity recognition, resilience, effectuation). This prevents a vague, narrative review.

• Translate your topic into keyword clusters (core terms, synonyms, related constructs) and combine them with Boolean logic in academic databases (AND, OR, NOT).

• Set inclusion/exclusion criteria up front: publication date window (e.g. last 5–7 years), peer‑reviewed only, language, empirical/theoretical, and relevance to your specific context.

• Log everything in a simple spreadsheet (citation, method, sample, key findings, relevance) so you can later map and sort studies systematically.

2. Read critically, not just descriptively

• Use “smart reading”: start with abstract, then introduction, then findings/discussion to decide whether a paper deserves deep reading, which saves time on marginally relevant work.

• For each study, note its theoretical lens, methodology, sample, main findings, and stated limitations; this is the raw material for identifying patterns and weaknesses.

• Ask consistently: What problem is this study really addressing? What assumptions does it make? Where are its methods or context limited?

• Deliberately record studies that contradict each other; disagreements often signal interesting gaps in theory, method, or context.

3. Synthesize around themes, debates, and gaps

• Group studies into coherent themes (e.g. stages of the entrepreneurial journey, individual vs organizational resilience factors, measurement approaches) rather than summarizing article‑by‑article.

• Within each theme, compare: where do authors converge, where do they diverge, and how do differences in context or method explain that?

• Treat “gap spotting” as structured: look for under‑studied contexts (e.g. Asian SMEs), neglected variables (e.g. family dynamics in entrepreneurial resilience), or underused methods (e.g. longitudinal designs).

• End each thematic subsection with a short “so what” paragraph that states what we know, what is contested, and what is missing; these feed directly into your final gap statement.

4. Make the gap and your contribution explicit and aligned

• In the final part of the review, synthesize upwards: briefly recap the main patterns and tensions, then state the specific gap your study will address (who/what/where/how is missing).

• Ensure your research questions follow logically from that gap; a reader should be able to see the direct line from prior limitations to your objectives.

• Frame the practical and theoretical value of filling this gap (e.g. implications for entrepreneurial support policies, contributions to resilience theory in emerging markets).

• Keep your writing structured and signposted (introduction, thematic sections, gap/contribution), and maintain your own authorial voice rather than a patchwork of quotations.

If you share a specific topic (say, entrepreneurial journey in Hong Kong family businesses), I can help you turn this into a concrete search and thematic coding plan.

A collection of blog notes on using chatgpt for research purpose.