A survey study
on literature review practices and concerns in Hong Kong based on the managerial
intellectual learning lens
JOSEPH
KIM-KEUNG HO
Independent
Trainer
Hong Kong, China
Abstract: Despite the availability of substantial
literature on the subject of literature review in the field of Business Research
Methods, difficulty to learn literature review has often been expressed by
university students in business management. This paper examines the students’
literature review learning concern in terms of short-term difficulty to conduct
literature review for students’ final year dissertation project requirement and
long-term interest to master literature review skills in the life-long managerial
intellectual learning process. The discussion is informed by a Facebook-based
survey on students’ perception on literature review practices. The survey
findings appear to be compatible with the managerial intellectual learning
notion of Ho (2013; 2014a; 2014b; 2014c; 2014d). Suggestions to tackle
literature review learning concern are offered based on the managerial
intellectual learning notion of Ho (2013; 2014a; 2014b; 2014c; 2014d). Via the
discussion, the relationship between literature review and the managerial
intellectual learning notion is further clarified.
Key words: Business research methods, Facebook-based
questionnaire survey, Literature review, Management education, Managerial
intellectual learning.
This is a revised paper on: 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).
Introduction
The topic of literature review is a
major one in the subject of Business Research Methods. Textbooks on Business
Research Methods all explicitly explain the topic with a devoted chapter.
Nevertheless, as a part-time teacher, this writer recognizes that quite some students
express difficulties in understanding and conducting their own literature search[1]
and literature review for their dissertation projects. Moreover, the quality of
literature review of quite many of the writer’s students as presented in their
dissertation reports is low. Very often, students’ writings on literature
reviews read like disorganized lecture notes; these writings are not able to
inform the students’ research design and theory-driven analysis of findings in
their dissertation reports. Out of this personal observation, which is widely shared
by his teacher colleagues, the writer is motivated to examine university
students and graduates’ literature review practices and concerns by means of a Facebook-based
questionnaire survey. This paper mainly studies the literature review practices
and concerns for the Hong Kong part-time university students in business
management, although many of the ideas on literature review are also applicable
to the fields of social sciences, e.g., housing studies, and engineering
management. In the discussion, the writer also examines how university students’
and graduates’ literature review practices can affect their managerial intellectual
learning, using the writer’s conceptual model on the managerial intellectual
learning as an analytical tool.
The purposes, recommended
practices and required skills for literature review in the subject of Business
Research Methods
To begin with, the subject of
literature review has been well explained in Business Research Methods
textbooks such as Collis and Hussey (2009), Bryman and Bell (2007) and Saunders
et al., (012), as well as Youtube
videos, such as Literature Review HQ (2011), Massey University (2010) and Taylor
(2010). A literature review involves a critical evaluation of “the existing
body of knowledge on a topic” to inform research (Collis and Hussey, 2009). Literature
covers “all sources of secondary data that are relevant to your study” (Collis
and Hussey, 2009). In this paper, the main focus is on the literature of academic
research and scholarly works that can be found in primary (e.g., conference
proceedings and theses[2]),
secondary (e.g., academic journals[3],
textbooks and newspapers) and tertiary sources (e.g., citation indexes) (Saunders
et al., 2012). The reason for
focusing on the academic research and scholarly works here is that these are
the publications mainly found in university libraries (including university
e-libraries) that students experience much difficulty in understanding, which
indicates their weak intellectual ability and unfamiliarity with scholarly/
academic works. In contrast, it is much less common for a student to say that
he/she has difficulty to read newspaper articles or course textbooks, which are
other sources of literature. It has also been reported that certain of these
scholarly and academic works have low relevance to the world of management
practices (Ho, 2013). Thus, some students can find it difficult to apply these
works in their dissertation projects. The following are the main purposes of literature
review, grouped into two categories, i.e., (i) to find out and (ii) to enable:
Category 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 (Bryman and Bell, 2007).
Category 2 - To enable a researcher to: increase theoretical sensitivity
to an area of study, formulate, refine and justify research questions (Saunders
et al., 2012; Strauss and Corbin,
1990).
The “find out”-type of purposes (a) informs
the “enable”-type of purposes (b) and vice versa. The actual objectives for a specific
literature review are affected by the reviewer’s research interests, expectations
of major dissertation project stakeholders, resource constraints, research
skills and endorsed research philosophy. There are also recommended practices
on the literature review offered in Research Methods textbooks. The following
are some typical ones:
Recommended practice 1: to adopt a systematic review with
explicit procedures to reduce biases and promote thoroughness (Bryman and Bell,
2007; Armitage and Keeble-Allen, 2008).
Recommended practice 2: to adopt a “less focused” review
based on interpretivism to obtain an “initial impression” on an area of study (Bryman
and Bell, 2007).
Recommended practice 3: to adopt an appropriate literature
review approach based primarily on inductive or deductive research concerns (Bryman
and Bell, 2007).
Recommended practice 4: to conduct literature review
throughout the dissertation project life-cycle (Saunders et al., 2012)[4].
A number of skills have been
identified for literature review of scholarly contents: i.e., previewing,
comparing, summarizing, evaluating, selecting, reconfiguring and synthesizing
of notions and theories in the literature based on critical thinking with the
primary view to serve the researcher’s research objectives and concerns. Some
researchers recommend using diagramming techniques, e.g. mindmaps and cognitive
maps, when practicing these skills but not all researchers like to draw
diagrams. Illustrations of the literature review skill and practices are widely
available from academic journal articles. For instances,
i.
Ho (1997) involves comparing and evaluating theories
in the fields of Logistics Management and Systems Thinking.
ii.
Ho (2014e) is an exercise of synthesizing ideas from
diverse academic sources to come up with a comprehensive framework on
scholar-practitioner.
iii.
Iden and Eikebrokk (2013) is a systemic literature
review on IT Service Management with two explicit objectives: (a) “to identify,
classify, and summarize existing research on ITSM and ITIL implementation” and
(b) “to identify areas and opportunities for future research”.
iv.
Croom, Romano and Giannakis (2000) offer “a framework
for the categorization of literature linked to supply chain management”.
As a whole, the literature review
aims at (i) demonstrating “the researcher’s familiarity with the existing
knowledge” and (ii) providing “insights” in an area of study (Gill et al., 2010). Since the purposes, recommended practices and
required skills for literature review have been well explained in Business Research
Methods textbooks and illustrated in academic journal articles, why then do a
significant number of university students still express to this writer and some
of his teaching colleagues difficulty to understand the subject of literature
review? Furthermore, this perceived difficulty has also been revealed in the recent
Facebook-based survey findings from the writer, which is reported in the latter
part of this paper. This issue of students’ difficulty to learn literature
review is examined in the next section.
Difficulty to
learn literature review seen from the managerial intellectual learning
perspective
From the writer’s experience as a
teacher, students’ difficulty to learn literature review and conduct literature
review exercises originates from a number of personal and contextual factors:
a.
Relatively weak intellectual ability, as also
manifested in poor knowledge in the subjects that they study in their academic
degree programmes.
b.
Relatively weak exploratory, inter-disciplinary and
trans-disciplinary skill, which is required in literature review exercises.[5]
c.
Inappropriate intellectual learning attitude, notably
not having much intellectual curiosity to learn.
d.
Insufficient time to study the degree programme subjects
due to tight teaching schedules as well as heavy job and domestic duties.
e.
Literature review skill involves experiential
knowledge; gaining the skill requires hands-on literature review practices,
which takes time and mindfulness on the students’ part.
f.
Insufficient educational infrastructural support to
students’ learning, e.g., lack of access to academic journal e-libraries.[6]
These factors, related to the theme
of the managerial intellectual learning, have been examined by Ho (2013; 2014a; 2014b; 2014c; 2014d) at
some length. To a large extent, the factors can be attributed to the weak managerial
intellectual learning capability and process on the student’s part[7]
(Ho, 2014c). In this case, students’ difficulty to learn the subject of
literature review is a symptom of the ineffective managerial intellectual
learning process, the weak managerial intellectual learning capability and the
hard-pressed learning environment. However, building up managerial intellectual
learning capability is a life-long endeavor directed at enhancing the
managerial intellectual learning capability-building-building mechanism (MILCBM)[8]
(Ho, 2014c), while quite some students’ immediate concern is to learn “sufficient”
literature review skill so as to conduct a literature review exercise within
acute time and intellectual capability constraint. For them, there is an urgent
requirement to produce a dissertation report with acceptable quality, as
informed by a necessarily brief literature review exercise. This is the gist of
the literature review learning problem that many of the students are facing
during their study. What they need then is a quick-fix, not an advice for the
long-term solution on the mastery of literature review skill. For instance,
these students very likely do not have time to study Saunders et al. (2012) which is a 631-page
textbook (excluding the bibliography part). The problem of the stressful
learning environment in the formal tertiary business education system with tight
teaching schedules arises from the broader contemporary commercialized context
of tertiary business education in Hong Kong. In this context, education centres
are motivated to offer degree programmes with reasonably short study duration,
and students are convinced that shorter degree programme duration is more
desirable to them as they are able to graduate sooner. [Education centres would
tell you that their degree programmes are more intensive due to the shorter
programme duration.] As a result, teaching and student learning are all done in
a rush. When pressed too hard, some students, who are not so honest, resort to
academic cheating, e.g., plagiarism, when doing their final-year dissertation
projects. Consequently, the topics of academic cheating and the feasibility of
“accelerated student learning” often come up as vital issues in academic board
meetings that the writer has attended these days.
On this issue of a quick-fix to
students’ literature review problem when doing a dissertation project with
severe time pressure, the writer advises students to select a management theory
that they are familiar with as the core theoretical theme to review in their
dissertation literature review exercise. They then conduct a brief literature search
and literature review so as to evaluate, amend and enhance the management
theory that they have chosen for their dissertation project application. To do
so, they still need to conduct searching via the University e-libraries,
download and select relevant academic articles to read. Selection of academic
articles to read can be quickly done by browsing the abstracts of academic
articles to determine whether the journal articles are relevant to the
students’ literature review exercise. Apparently, the quick-fix literature
review exercise is an expedient solution, which is different from the advice
provided in the Business Research Methods textbooks; these books offer proper
guidelines for long-term learning on literature review. However, the Business Research
Methods textbooks’ ideas are not helpful to intellectually weak students who
are in a desperate time-hungry situation when doing their dissertation
projects. This explains why quite a number of students express difficulty to
learn and conduct literature review during their formal degree education
programme study. Whether students are interested in mastering literature review
skill for their continuous professional development is another concern. The
next section on a Facebook-based survey further examines the topics of
literature review practices as well as short-term/ long-term literature review
concerns.
An analysis of
Facebook-based survey findings on literature review practices and concerns
A Facebook-based survey on literature
review practices and concerns was carried out from January 23 to 30, 2015. The
survey questionnaire was constructed using the free-of-charge survey tool from
kwiksurveys.com. The questionnaire was posted on the writer’s Facebook wall as
well as sent to the writer’s Facebook friends by Facebook messages. Most of the
writer’s Facebook friends are his former or current students in the fields of
business management, engineering management and housing studies. There are around
1,590 friends and 128 respondents participated in the survey. This Facebook-based
survey method has certain strengths, e.g., agile and economical as well as
weaknesses, e.g., low external validity and structured. It was examined by Ho (2014f),
thus not further discussed here. The main survey findings are as follows (also
see the appendices of this paper):
I.
Findings from the basic survey figures
Finding 1 (re: survey question 5): 86 (67.7%) respondents have
learned or are learning the subject of literature review. This indicates that
the subject of literature review has been widely covered in many of the
academic degree programmes.
Finding 2 (re: survey question 6): 82 (64.1%)
respondents either strongly or mildly feel that the subject of literature review
is difficult to understand. This indicates that quite some respondents find the
subject not an easy one to learn during their formal education study.
Finding 3 (re: survey question 7): 86 (67.2%) respondents
either strongly or mildly feel that academic journal articles[9]
are difficult to understand. This indicates that many respondents encounter
difficulty conducting literature review on academic journal articles. This is
compatible with the direct feedback from the students to the writer as a
teacher.
Finding 4 (re: survey question 8): 93 (72.7%) respondents make
use of the university e-libraries to access academic journal articles; this confirms
the importance of e-library facility as an infrastructure for academic journal articles
access.
Finding 5 (re: survey question 9): 112 (87.5%) respondents feel
that academic journal articles are either very useful or basically useful for
literature review. This confirms the importance of academic journal articles as
a resource for literature review.[10]
Finding 6 (re: survey question 10): 106 (82.8%) respondents
either strongly or mildly feel that reading academic journal articles are able
to improve their professional competence. This indicates that many respondents
feel that reading academic journal articles is a valuable means for management
development and continuous managerial intellectual learning. It also suggests
that the perceived difficulty to comprehend academic journal articles itself
(re: survey finding 3) does not affect their feeling on the value of reading
academic journal articles.
Finding 7 (re: survey question 11): 53 (41.4%) respondents have
access to academic journal libraries (other than Google Scholar) when they are
not studying for a formal education programme. Given the perceived importance
of academic journal articles as useful readings for professional development
(re: finding 6), the relatively low accessibility to this resource is a
hindrance to their managerial intellectual
learning and professional development.
Finding 8 (re: survey question 12): 87 (69%) are either
strongly or mildly interested in improving their literature review skill in the
near future. This indicates that the majority of the respondents ascertain the
practical value of mastering literature review skill. This also reflects their
broader interest in long-term managerial intellectual learning.
II.
Findings via further analysis using Excel filtering
function on the survey records
Finding 9 (re: survey question 4 and question 6): The following
table, Table 1, indicates how the field of education can affect the perceived difficulty
of understanding the subject of literature review. Options a to d come from
survey question 4 while options i to iv are from survey question 6. Overall,
the % figures for respondents with different fields of education share a
relatively consistent pattern on perceived difficulty of understanding the
subject of literature review; that is, a slight majority of respondents have
strong or mild feeling that the subject of literature review is difficult to
understand, irrespective of their fields of education. In other words, the
field of education of students has no specific effect on the perceived
difficulty of understanding the literature review subject. [The % figures are
based on the subtotals of the cell figures by rows. For example, for the
top-left cell figure of 17(18%), 18% is 17/ (17+46+21+13). The figures in Table
1 can be further analyzed with the chi-square test (Lind et al., 2001: chapter 15) but this is not performed in this paper.]
Table 1: The relationship between the field of
education and the perceived difficulty of understanding the subject of
literature review
|
Field of education
|
Yes,
I strongly feel so.
[option
i]
|
I
have this feeling mildly.
[option
ii]
|
I
feel it is not difficult to understand. [option iii]
|
No
feeling at all/ not applicable. [option iv]
|
|
Business-related [option a]
|
17
(18%)
|
46
(47%)
|
21
(22%)
|
13
(13%)
|
|
Non-business related. [option b]
|
3
(21%)
|
5
(36%)
|
5
(36%)
|
1
(7%)
|
|
Both business and non-business related. [option c]
|
4
(27%)
|
6
(40%)
|
4
(27%)
|
1
(7%)
|
|
Unclassified. [option d]
|
0
(0%)
|
1
(50%)
|
0
(0%)
|
1
(50%)
|
Finding 10 (re: survey question 7 and question
9): The following table, Table 2, indicates how the perceived difficulty to
understand academic journal articles (re: survey question 7) can affect the
perceived usefulness of academic journal articles for literature review (re:
survey question 9). Options a to d come from survey question 7 while options i
to iv are from survey question 9. Overall,
perceived difficulty to understand academic journal articles is negatively correlated
to the feeling that academic journal articles are useful for literature review.
That is, the stronger the perceived difficulty to understand academic journal
articles, the weaker the feeling that academic journal articles is useful for
literature review. It should be noted that strong correlation finding is not a
sufficient evidence to establish cause-effect relationship between the two
variables as covered in survey questions 7 and 9.
Table 2: The relationship between the perceived
difficulty to understand academic journal articles and the feeling of
usefulness of academic journal articles for literature review
|
Perceived difficulty to understand
academic journal articles
|
Yes,
very useful. [option i]
|
It
is basically useful. [option ii]
|
Not
useful. [option iii]
|
No
idea. [option iv]
|
|
Yes, I strongly feel so. [option a]
|
10
(38%)
|
10
(38%)
|
3
(12%)
|
3
(12%)
|
|
I have this feeling mildly. [option b]
|
31
(52%)
|
25
(42%)
|
0
(0%)
|
4
(7%)
|
|
I feel it is not difficult to understand, in
general. [option c]
|
22
(63%)
|
10
(29%)
|
0
(0%)
|
3
(9%)
|
|
No feeling at all. [option d]
|
2
(29%)
|
2
(29%)
|
0
(0%)
|
3
(43%)
|
Finding 11 (re: survey question 10 and
question 12): The following table, Table 3, indicates the relationship between the
feeling of professional competence relevance of reading academic journal
articles (re: survey question 10) and the interest in improving literature
review skill in the near future (re: survey question 12). In Table 3, options a
to d come from survey question 10 while options i to iv are from survey
question 12. Overall, the pattern of the figures indicates that the stronger
the feeling of professional competence relevance of reading academic journal
articles, the stronger the interest in improving literature review skill in the
near future on the respondents’ part.
Table 3: The relationship between the feeling of
professional competence relevance of reading academic journal articles and the interest
in improving literature review skill in the near future
|
Feeling of professional competence
relevance of reading academic journal articles
|
Yes,
I am strongly interested. [option i]
|
I
am mildly interested. [option ii]
|
No,
not interested. [option iii]
|
No
idea. [option iv]
|
|
Yes, I strongly feel so. [option a]
|
19
(41%)
|
21
(46%)
|
4
(9%)
|
2
(4%)
|
|
I have this feeling mildly. [option b]
|
19
(33%)
|
22
(38%)
|
13
(22%)
|
4
(7%)
|
|
I don’t think so. [option c]
|
2
(13%)
|
2
(13%)
|
9
(56%)
|
3
(19%)
|
|
No idea. [option d]
|
1
(17%)
|
1
(17%)
|
2
(33%)
|
2
(33%)
|
Finding 12 (re: survey question 11 and
question 12). The following table, Table 4, indicates the relationship between
ease of access to academic journal libraries when not studying for a formal
education programme (re: survey question 11) and interest in improving literature
review skill in the near future (re: survey question 12). Options a to d come
from survey question 11 while options i to iv are from survey question 12.
Overall, the pattern of the figures, i.e., a positive correlation, indicates
that the ease of access to academic journal libraries when not studying for a
formal education programme (e.g., after graduation) can increase a student’s
(or a graduate) interest in improving literature review skill (which is a major
part of the managerial intellectual learning) in the near future.
Table 4: The relationship between the ease of access
to academic journal libraries when not studying for a formal education
programme and the interest in improving literature review skill in the near
future.
|
Ease of access to academic journal
libraries when not studying for a formal education programme
|
Yes,
I am strongly interested. [option i]
|
I
am mildly interested. [option ii]
|
No,
not interested. [option iii]
|
No
idea. [option iv]
|
|
Yes, and convenient. [option a]
|
10
(43%)
|
6
(26%)
|
5
(22%)
|
2
(9%)
|
|
Yes, but not convenient. [option b]
|
11
(39%)
|
11
(39%)
|
5
(18%)
|
1
(4%)
|
|
Not able to access at all. [option c]
|
18
(30%)
|
23
(38%)
|
15
(25%)
|
5
(8%)
|
|
No idea. [option d]
|
2
(14%)
|
6
(43%)
|
3
(21%)
|
3
(21%)
|
Overall, the subject of literature
review has been widely taught in tertiary education programmes (re: Finding 1).
At the same time, it is very often considered to be difficult to understand, notably
on academic journal article review (re: Finding 2). For those students who do
not find academic journal articles difficult to read (presumably due to higher
intellectual competence), they also consider academic journal articles useful
for literature review (re: Finding 10). And, for those who feel that reading academic
journal articles can improve their professional competence, they are also more
interested in improving their literature review skill in the near future (re:
Finding 11), presumably also on their managerial intellectual learning
capability-building mechanism. These findings are compatible with the mutual feedback-loop
view of the managerial intellectual learning model of Ho (2014a), see Figure 1.
Viewed from the managerial
intellectual learning perspective (re: Figure 1) (Ho, 2014a), a literature review
exercise is an assignment exercise for the managerial intellectual learning,
which is located in the box of “The intellectual process” while literature
search is represented by the double-arrow between the components of “Literature
on management disciplines” and “The MPSB knowledge compilation + Managerial
intellectual learning”. Finding 12 suggests that the ease of access to academic
journal libraries, which affects ease of literature search, has positive effect
on the interest in improving literature review skill, which also implies
interest in the managerial intellectual learning. In terms of the model as
depicted in Figure 1, literature review learning is an essential part of the
managerial intellectual learning (re: survey finding 6). Furthermore, the
managerial intellectual learning results in the intellectual outputs, which is
an enhanced MPSB cognitive filter for management (explicit). An enhanced MPSB
filter for management (explicit) strengthens managerial intellectual learning capability,
manifested in heightened perceived usefulness of academic journal articles for
literature review (re: survey finding 10). Subsequently, an enhanced MPSB
cognitive filter improves management practices, which, in turn, can foster a
more active intellectual process: it can be conceived as a feedback from the appreciative
context to the intellectual process (i.e., the feedback loop in Figure 1). Following
this line of reasoning with the managerial intellectual learning model, it can
be argued that such feedback heightens the perceived relevance of literature
review skill to improve professional competence (re: survey finding 6). In the
writer’s view, exactly how the feedback affects the intellectual process also depends
on whether the student concerned is interested in pursuing the life-goal to
become a scholar-practitioner or not (Ho, 2014e). After all, literature review
is a typical scholarly activity which should be especially appealing to
scholar-practitioners. Readers are referred to Ho (2014a) for a detailed
discussion of the model as portrayed in Figure 1. Obviously, the validity of
this explanation based on Figure 1 can only be judged in terms of the
plausibility of the argument itself, which is subjective and cannot be “proved”
with scientific vigor, even though the managerial intellectual learning model
itself is informed by a comprehensive literature review and limited empirical
findings (Ho 2013; 2014a; 2014b; 2014c; 2014d). Nevertheless, the Facebook-based survey findings as reported here have
limited external and internal validity to support the explanation presented in
this paper and much more empirical research on this topic is warranted. Last,
as the various components as identified in Figure 1 mutually affect each other,
the effects assessment of individual factors from the survey and components
from the model can only be done in a holistic way.
Concluding
remarks
Students’ difficulty to learn
literature review can be divided into two concerns: (1) how to tackle their immediate
final-year project requirements that involves literature review [concern 1- short term] and (2) how to
master literature review skills as part of their continuous professional
development [concern 2 – long term].
Concern 1 is an immediate problem that requires an expedient solution while
concern 2 is a long-term managerial intellectual learning issue that requires
the building up of managerial intellectual learning capability and an effective
managerial intellectual learning process which suits students’ long-term
personal career/professional aspirations. It is acknowledged that these
aspirations are basically unique to each individual student. Some suggestions
have been proposed to address both short-term and long-term concerns of
students in this paper. Finally, by shedding light on the literature review
concerns and practices of students, this paper also serves to clarify the
relationship between literature review and the managerial intellectual
learning. Thus, it contributes to the theoretical development on the notion of the
managerial intellectual learning.
References
Armitage, A. and D. Keeble-Allen.
2008. “Undertaking a Structured Literature Review or Structuring a Literature
Review: Tales from the Field, The
Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods 6(2): 103-114. [url
address: www.ejbrm.com].
Bryman, A. and E. Bell. 2007. Business Research Methods. Oxford
University Press, Great Clarendon Street, Oxford OX2 6DP.
Collis, J. and R. Hussey. 2009. Business Research: a practical guide for
undergraduate & postgraduate students, Palgrave Macmillan, England.
Croom, S., P. Romano and M.
Giannakis. 2000. “Supply chain management: an analytical framework for critical
literature review” European Journal of
Purchasing & Supply Management 6,
Pergamon: 67-83.
Gill, J., P. Johnson and M. Clark.
2010. Research Methods for Managers,
Sage Publication, London.
Ho,
J.K.K. 1997. “What can contemporary systems thinking offer to logistics
management as a management discipline?” European
Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management 3(2), Pergamon: 77-81.
Ho, J.K.K. 2013. “
A
theoretical review on the professional development to be a scholar practitioner
in business management”
Iden, J. and T.R. Eikebrokk. 2013. “Implementing IT
Service Management: A systematic literature review” International Journal of Information Management, 33, Elsevier: 512-523.
Lind, D.A., W.G. Marchal and R.D.
Mason. 2001. Statistical Techniques in
Business & Economics, McGraw-Hill Irwin, Boston.
Literature Review HQ. 2011. “3 ways
to structure your Literature Review” Literature Review HQ, June 16 (url
address: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PU2uqFY-l4s) [visited at February 2, 2015].
Massey University. 2010. The
Literature Review, Massey University, May 17 (url address: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKL2pdRmwc4) [visited at February 2, 2015].
Saunders, M., P. Lewis and A.
Thornhill. 2012. Research Methods for
Business Students, Pearson, Harlow, England:
Strauss, A. and J. Corbin. 1990. Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded
Theory Procedures and Techniques, Sage publications, London.
Taylor, D. 2010. “Writing the
Literature Review (Part One): Step-by-Step Tutorial for Graduate Students” June
28 (url address: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2IUZWZX4OGI) [visited at February 2, 2015].
The HKU Scholar Hub. 2015. The HKU
Scholar Hub, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong (url address: http://hub.hku.hk/local/relsite.jsp) [visited at February 17, 2015].
Internet
resources:
Literature on literature review Facebook page, maintained by Joseph
K.K. Ho (url address: https://www.facebook.com/literature.literaturereview/timeline).
Managerial intellectual learning Facebook page, maintained by Joseph
K.K. Ho (url address: https://www.facebook.com/managerial.intellectual.learning/timeline).
Appendix
Appendix 1: The Facebook-based survey questions (14
questions) and responses statistics
|
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%)
|
Appendix 2: Response
statistics over time, from January 23 to 30, 2015
[1]
A literature search is a process to
“identify the existing body of knowledge on a particular topic” (Collis and
Hussey, 2009). This paper mainly examines the topic of literature review, not on literature
search.
[3] All established
academic journal publishers’ portals, e.g. Wiley, Sage and Taylor &
Francis, etc., have built-in search engines to search for journal articles.
[4] Many of the writer’s students have the
misconception that they are required to conduct literature review only after
their dissertation proposals have been approved by their dissertation
supervisors. They are also worried that their literature review efforts can be
wasted if their dissertation proposals are rejected by their dissertation
supervisors. As a result, they are unwilling to do initial-stage literature
review.
[5]
Most
students are familiar with subjects that mainly involve exploitation, not
exploration, on taught theories. Exploratory course works can appear confusing
to students, thus increasing their risk of failure in the subjects. Very often,
they do not appreciate exploratory type of course works as a result.
[6] One of the overseas universities that the writer is employed
as a part-time teacher offers e-library access only to its post-graduate
students, not undergraduate students.
[7] The managerial intellectual learning process
framework comprises four phases, namely, Phase 1: Data management, Phase 2:
Absorbed reading, Phase 3: The Multi-perspective, Systems-based knowledge compilation
and Phase*: Practice-based intellectual learning (Ho, 2014c).
[8] The managerial
intellectual learning capability-building mechanism (MILCBM) is made up of
3 inter-related components, namely, (i) motivating factors, (ii) mindfulness
and theory-driven reflection and (iii) personal resource management. These
three components are subject to work & non-work influences, supports and
constraints; the MILCBM also obtains feedback from the world of management
practices (Ho, 2014c; 2014d).
[9]
The
survey study focuses on academic journal articles as they, often with more
sophisticated employment of academic jargons in their discussion based on
comprehensive literature review, tend to be more difficult to read than other
forms of literature, such as textbooks and newspaper articles.
[10] In
general, while subject textbooks, as a teaching tool, are good at offering a
comprehensive introduction to a subject, academic journal articles excels in
critically evaluating academic notions and theories with comprehensive
literature review.
A pdf version can be found at: https://www.academia.edu/21168600/A_survey_study_on_literature_review_practices_and_concerns_in_Hong_Kong_based_on_the_managerial_intellectual_learning_lens
ReplyDelete