Some
additional conceptual clarification of the recently proposed agile literature review approach (ALRA)
The agile
literature review approach (ALRA) has recently been formulated for: (i) students
newly involved in applied business research projects, (ii) literature review-informed
management practices and (iii) managerial intellectual learning (Ho, 2017). Ho
(2017) provides the initial account of the ALRA. Additional thinking on the
ALRA, primarily on the ALRA characteristics, its underlying thinking and the research
report quality it promotes, is offered here. As such, this article contributes
to the theoretical clarification of the ALRA. It points to the need to carry on
with the intellectual journey of developing this novel topic in the business management field.
Key words: Applied
Business Research, contemporary systems thinking, literature review, the agile
literature review approach (ALRA)
Introduction
Many
students, both at undergraduate and post-graduate levels, experience
difficulties in pursuing managerial intellectual learning in general and in
doing final year dissertation projects in particular. Such is the writer's
teaching experience in Hong Kong. There are a number of reasons for that, such
as lack of time to do dissertation projects, lack of skills to tackle
non-examination-based academic assignment, difficulty to relate academic
writings to specific real-world managerial concern investigation, weak existing
intellectual competence, and the existence of the relevance gap in the academic
literature (Ho, 2017). Of late, reflecting on these common intellectual
learning difficulties encountered by the writer's students in Hong Kong, he proposed
the agile literature review approach (ALRA) (Ho, 2017) to guide students in
three application domains. These are: (i) to improve immediate academic
performance in dissertation project works [ALRA application domain 1], (ii) to strengthen
managerial problem-solving performance [ALRA application domain 2], and (iii) to
develop managerial intellectual competence [ALRA application domain 3]. These
three application domains are related. In this article, the writer takes up the
task of further developing the ALRA theme. Specifically, it offers to
distinguish between two types of ALRA, namely, ALRA I and ALRA II. Then, it clarifies
the characteristics of the ALRA in the form of response statements to some
literature review ideas in the literature review subject. Finally, it explicates
four desired quality attributes of applied business research dissertation
reports that the ALRA endorses. In short, this article is an attempt to provide
some extra conceptual elaboration on the ALRA.
Basic ideas on the ALRA
A central
nature of the ALRA is its agility. This nature of the ALRA resonates with that
of the Agile Manifesto for Software Development (Agilemanifesto.org. n.d.),
such as (i) early and continuous of literature review findings as well as (ii) close
collaboration among the ALRA users and, preferably other stakeholders related
to the management concern(s) studied, involved in the ALRA employment. The
approach consists of two parts: the four literature review steps (part 1), and a strongly recommended theoretical
grounding of the ALRA on contemporary systems thinking, notably on topics of
expansionism, the four levels of complexity II and critical systems thinking (part 2) (Ho, 2017). Regarding part 1, the
four ALRA steps are: Step 1 (ideas search), Step 2 (ideas collection), Step 3
(ideas categorization) and, finally, Step 4 (ideas systemic diagramming). In
brief, ALRA Step 1 is essentially about literature search while ALRA Steps 2 to
4 constitute an agile way to carry out
literature review. By following the ALRA steps, chiefly as an idealized evolutionary
process model, the writer proclaims that the ALRA user is better able to
conduct literature review in an agile way, leading to a more complicated
understanding of the management topics and concerns under study. The study of a
specific set of management topics and concerns can be for doing an applied
business research project or for informing a managerial endeavor to cope with
an actual management concern. The resultant ideas systemic diagram produced via
the ALRA Step 4 can also serve as a theoretical framework to inform
dissertation project works, e.g., on research design and findings analysis or
specific management practice. Ho (2017) also postulates that, for outstanding
literature review performance and long-term intellectual competence development,
the ALRA should be grounded on contemporary systems thinking, particularly on
critical systems thinking (part 2). To do so requires continuous intellectual
learning on the subject of systems thinking with the ALRA as an intellectual
learning technique for academic literature study. Explicitly, the ALRA has
three application domains: literature review in applied business research, (ii)
managerial practices, notably on managerial problem-solving, and (iii)
managerial intellectual learning (Ho, 2017).
A distinction between ALRA I and ALRA II as two ALRA types
The
writer now labels the ALRA steps as ALRA I and the contemporary systems
thinking-based ALRA as ALRA II. Making this distinction enables him to more
plainly differentiate the key ideas between ALRA I and II as well as indicate
their relatedness as a result. Such clarification on ALRA I and II is performed
in terms of their (i) main conceptual components, (ii) expected application
outcomes, (iii) constraints of practice and (iv) practice support
required. It is summarized in Table 1.
Table 1: A comparison of ALRA I and ALRA
II
|
ALRA I
|
ALRA II
|
1. Main
conceptual components of the approach
|
1.1. An idealized model with four ALRA steps and techniques
involved, including basic literature search, literature review knowledge, and
diagramming technique
1.2. Resonance with the principles of
the Agile Manifesto for Software Development
1.3. Deadline-driven intellectual
learning
1.4. Some awareness of the relevance of
contemporary systems thinking
|
1.1. ALRA
I as an intellectual learning tool
1.2. Contemporary
systems thinking as the underlying theoretical perspective
1.3.
Inner-driven managerial intellectual learning
|
2. Expected
application outcomes
|
2.1. Frequent and quick literature
review progress
2.2. Ability to plan for research design,
as informed by the constructed ideas systemic diagram(s) (re: ALRA Step 4)
2.3. Some intellectual learning gained
by the ALRA user
|
2.1. Sustained
managerial intellectual learning, especially on contemporary systems
thinking, and other business management topics
2.2.
Achievement of consistently outstanding ALRA I performance and associated
management practices
|
3. Constraints
of practice
|
3.1. Time constraint, e.g., dissertation
project deadline
3.2. Existing managerial intellectual
competence of the ALRA user
3.3. Specific university requirements on
Applied Business Research project
3.4. The dissertation supervisor's
favored research methods and philosophy
3.5. Specific client's organizational
setting facing the ALRA user, e.g., perceived as a unitary, pluralist or
coercive one.
|
3.1. Mental
constraint of the ALRA user, e.g., devotion on managerial intellectual
learning, especially on contemporary systems thinking
3.2. The
broader social/ economic climate as an external environmental constraint on
the intellectual learning
3.3.
Personal resource constraints, both financial and non-financial, on managerial
intellectual learning pursuit
|
4. Practice
support required
|
4.1. Coaching and dissertation
supervisory support in an applied business research setting
4.2. Learning resource support, e.g.,
e-library
4.3. Social networking support
|
4.1. Coaching,
mentoring and educational support
·
4.2. Learning resource support, e.g.,
e-library
·
4.3. Social networking support
|
The original
elaboration of the ideas associated to ALRA I and II has been made in Ho (2017)
albeit the terms of ALRA I and II
are coined here. Based on this classification of ALRA types, ALRA I is
conceived as a heuristic device for a tight
deadline-driven literature review exercise while ALRA II is more concerned
about systemic literature review practice as well as the continuous systems
thinking-based managerial intellectual learning with the ALRA I as a major learning
tool. Additionally, the distinctive features of the ALRA, comprising both ALRA
I and II, can be made clear by heeding the ALRA responses to the main
literature review ideas from the academic literature. This is done in the next
section.
The ALRA responses to the literature review ideas from
the academic literature review sources
Another
way to illuminate the features and thinking underlying the ALRA is to come forward with response statements to
some literature review ideas from the existing academic literature on
literature review. This endeavor also helps in establishing more properly the
ALRA as a topic in the field of
literature review. In this article, the writer has chosen thirteen literature
review ideas from the academic literature for this exercise. The findings is
presented in Table 2. Some of the words from the academic literature are in
bold type to underline the main conceptual aspects of the academic literature
review ideas in Table 2.
Table 2: The main literature review ideas
from the academic literature and the corresponding ALRA response statements
Some
literature review ideas from the academic literature
|
Relevant
ALRA features for comparison as response statements
|
I. Literature
review purposes
|
Idea 1:
"... literature reviews
help researchers develop an argument for their study by demonstrating that
they are extending existing knowledge—building
on what is already out there and filling gaps that exist" (Zorn and
Campbell, 2006).
|
Response
1: The ALRA requires its users to synthesize their chosen academic
concepts with a few of their own ideas specific to their management concerns
and issues into a theoretical framework. The framework construction involves
an endeavor to "extend existing academic knowledge" in order to
address their applied business research concerns.
|
Idea 2: ".... they [literature reviews] can be sources
of tools or solutions to organizational problems .... Literature reviews
can also inform decisions or support proposals or conclusions with credible evidence" (Zorn and
Campbell, 2006).
|
Response
2: The ALRA users conduct applied business research with the aim of
providing recommendations with high actionable value to the companies that
they study. Because of that, they are interested in academic ideas on
"tools or solutions to organizational problems". Most likely, some
of these academic ideas or categories of them would catch the attention of
the ALRA users, who then incorporate them early on into their constructed
theoretical frameworks to guide their research works. "Credible
evidence" from the academic literature to support the ideas taken up in
the theoretical framework and recommendations made is valuable in the ALRA
for it also makes the ALRA findings more credible.
|
II. Literature
review approaches
|
Idea 3: Traditional
or narrative literature review "critiques and summarizes
a body of literature and draws conclusions about the topic in question" (Cronin, Ryan and Coughlan, 2008).
|
Response
3: Critiquing and summarizing ideas from the literature as stored in the
study notes in the ALRA (re: deliverables from Step 2 of the ALRA) are also done in the
ALRA, primarily in ALRA Steps 3 and 4. They are, specifically, done quickly
and frequently in keeping with its agile style.
|
Idea 4:
".... systematic reviews use
a more rigorous and well-defined approach to reviewing
the literature in a specific subject area. Systematic reviews are used to answer well-focused questions" (Cronin, Ryan and Coughlan, 2008).
|
Response
4: The ALRA abandons the "rigorous" and "well-defined"
approach as being too hard systems in tone
to study management topics and concerns that are more often than not
messy. Instead, it is willing to explore inter-disciplinary and transdisciplinary
academic themes and management issues for applied business research. It views
a literature review approach that is agile and critical systems-based as
suitable for this kind of exploratory exercise.
|
Idea 5:
"Meta-analysis is the process of taking a large body of quantitative findings
and conducting statistical analysis
in order to integrate those findings
and enhance understanding" (Cronin, Ryan and Coughlan, 2008).
|
Response
5: The process of meta-analysis is quite incompatible with the agile
style of the ALRA, which stresses (i) quick and frequent progress in
literature review and (ii) qualitative way on literature review. The ALRA
does have the flexibility to employ some "statistical analysis", if
a ALRA user, in a particular project background, feels useful and have the
resource, e.g., availability of time, to do so.
|
Idea 6:
"Meta-synthesis is the non-statistical technique used to integrate, evaluate and interpret the findings of multiple qualitative research studies.
Such studies may be combined to identify
their common core elements and themes" (Cronin, Ryan and Coughlan, 2008).
|
Response
6: The ALRA is receptive to the meta-synthesis approach and its
associated technique, i.e., "non-statistical technique", and
required tasks, i.e., "integrate,
evaluate and interpret the findings of multiple qualitative research studies",
in ALRA Step 3 - ideas categorization. Academic
"themes" are called management topics in the ALRA.
|
III. Literature
review concerns
|
Idea 7:
"A good literature review
could, for example, identify
systematic theoretical and methodological biases in a field and suggest fundamental reorientation for understanding the problem or central
construct (Alvesson & Sandberg, 2011)" (Rowe, 2014).
|
Response
7: The ALRA is not methodologically rigorous enough to "identify systematic theoretical and
methodological biases in a field"; nevertheless, the ALRA user has
his/her own voice, which should steer him/ her to re-orientate certain
academic concepts and theories, if it helps in developing a theoretical
framework more relevant to address
specific management concern(s) in a particular organizational context. In the
process of doing so, the ALRA user might be able to sense hazily the
existence of "systematic theoretical and methodological biases in a
field".
|
Idea 8: ".... a key problem may be that the search is not systematic or comprehensive
enough. As a result, the literature reviewed may be too narrow,
scattered, or out of date. The search may also focus on the wrong sources,
for example, relying on textbooks and popular press articles at the expense
of scholarly sources" (Zorn and Campbell, 2006).
|
Response
8: The ALRA is primarily interested in the scholarly sources, but is
prepared to consider some non-scholarly sources for review. Literature search
is done in ALRA Step 1, which does not emphasize "systematic or
comprehensive" search of the various literature sources. Dissertation
project supervisors, or persons in a similar academic role, should be able to
advise on literature search so that literature search findings of the ALRA
users being "too narrow, scattered, or out of date" can be avoided
to a certain extent. Besides, literature search on academic publishers'
journal websites is quite convenient, thus mitigating the worry of it being
"narrow, scattered or out of date".
|
Idea 9:
"A good literature review gathers information about a particular
subject from many sources. It is well written and contains few if any personal biases" (Cronin, Ryan and Coughlan, 2008).
|
Response
9: The ALRA users are encouraged to gather information from both
scholarly and nonscholarly sources about management topics reflecting (i) the
personal voice of the ALRA users and (ii) management concern(s) that bother
them. Thus, the ALRA Step 1 also relies on "many sources" and
"personal biases" in the literature review cannot be totally
eliminated. Expectantly, as a result of being informed by ideas from
"many sources", the ALRA findings, e.g., the constructed theoretical
framework, should not be dominated by "personal biases" from the
ALRA user or a particular group of stakeholders in a specific organizational setting.
|
Idea
10: "The direct involvement of practitioners within a review potentially opens up greater scope for the
complexities of practice to be more fully respected, with the
professional user review representing the existing approach that incorporates
this perspective most directly" (Kahn, Wareham, Young, Willis and Pilkington, 2008).
|
Response
10: The ALRA is intended to be owned by practitioners who are either
doing an applied business research
project or, anyway, making use of the ALRA to address specific management
concern(s). Its application is carried out by the ALRA user, who is a
practitioner, if not a scholar-practitioner. Preferably, other stakeholders
of a particular situation are also involved, e.g., being consulted, with the
ALRA. In this regard, there is "direct involvement of
practitioners". As such, the ALRA, in the words of Kahn et al. (2008), "opens up greater scope for the complexities
of practice to be more fully respected".
|
Idea
11: "... there has been relatively
little consideration as to how reviews of research might be designed to ensure greater relevance to practitioners.
This is despite the way in which reviews provide a key means for
practitioners to access the research literature" (Kahn, Wareham, Young, Willis and
Pilkington, 2008).
|
Response
11: The ALRA is formulated to improve relevance of literature review to (i) practitioners,
primarily to those who are literature review novices with tight time
constraint (re: ALRA application domain 1) and (ii) aspiring management
scholar-practitioners (re: ALRA application domains 2 and 3). Being able to
produce management knowledge with high actionable value is therefore the
prime aim of the ALRA. In this regard, the ALRA explicitly addresses the
neglected "consideration" as pointed out by Kahn et al. (2008).
|
Idea
12: "A challenge, though, presents
itself as to whether a review conducted by practitioners might not be dominated by their own personal
perspectives, paradoxically ensuring limited
applicability to practitioners in other contexts" (Kahn, Wareham, Young, Willis and
Pilkington, 2008).
|
Response
12: An outstanding ALRA application requires the ALRA user to pursue
intellectual learning with both transdisciplinary and inter-disciplinary
orientations. These orientations enable the ALRA users to be more capable to
gain a creative and holistic understanding of management knowledge as well as
the specific problem-situation the users encounter. With that, the ALRA
user's "personal
perspective" can be intellectually enriched. The findings from research
projects that involve ALRA practices are expected to be capable of
applicability in other contexts mainly via (i) the Action Research approach
to study the applied business research projects and (ii) the intensive reflective usage of academic ideas as
encouraged by the ALRA.
|
Idea
13: "One of the most intimidating
aspects of a literature review is encountering the messy nature of knowledge. Concepts transcend disciplinary boundaries, and literature can be
found in a wide range of different kinds of sources" (Rowley and Slack, 2004).
|
Response
13: By endorsing contemporary systems thinking, notably critical systems
thinking, the ALRA users become more prepared to deal with both the messiness
and transdisciplinarity of the academic knowledge being reviewed.
|
Regarding
Table 2, the words from the academic literature in bold type underline the key
conceptual aspects on the literature review ideas. By making response
statements to these ideas from the standpoint of the ALRA rationale, the ALRA characteristics are more clearly spelled
out. To make the findings organized, Table 2 groups the ideas into three
categories: (i) literature review objectives, (ii) literature review approaches,
and (iii) literature review concerns. The left-hand side column of the table on
academic literature review ideas indicates: (i) more than a single literature
review approach, e.g., traditional or
narrative review, systematic review, meta-analysis and meta-synthesis (re:
Ideas 3, 4, 5 and 6), (ii) an array of tasks, e.g., critique, summarize, draw
conclusions, extend existing knowledge, offer sources of tools and solutions
(re: ideas 1, 2 and 3), and (iii) a number of concerns in the literature review
exercises, e.g., theoretical and methodological biases, personal biases, and
unsystematic and incomprehensive search (re: ideas 7, 8 and 9). The ALRA
response statements to the literature review ideas are shown in the right-hand
side column of Table 2. Some of the main ALRA thinking (re: the right-hand side
column of Table 2) are similar to that of
the academic literature, e.g., the ALRA responses to ideas 1, 2, 3, 6, 9, 10,
11 and 13. In this respect, the academic literature review ideas serve to
conceptually clarify and enrich the ALRA. Other literature review ideas are
quite dissimilar to that of the ALRA, e.g., the ALRA responses to ideas 4, 5,
7, 8 and 12. A reason for that is due to the diversity of literature review
ideas and approaches in the academic literature itself. Again, referring to
Table 2, a large number of the ALRA
response statements to the thirteen literature review ideas are chiefly
associated with ALRA I. Examples are responses 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
and 11. Nevertheless, three responses, i.e., responses 4, 12 and 13, appear to
be related to ALRA 2, as they are more attentive to the topics of perspective
and transdisciplinarity. Such findings outcome of Table 2 suggests that the
present academic literature review literature spares limited attention on
contemporary systems thinking and managerial intellectual learning. By
contrast, these two topics are the prime interest of ALRA 2, but not of ALRA I.
On the whole, the findings (re: Table 2) indicate that the ALRA can be conceptually
enriched by its users with other academic literature review ideas for they are
fertile in the intellectual sense. In addition, there is room for the ALRA
users to adapt ALRA I by incorporating other academic literature review ideas
into it in view of their specific intellectual competence profile and other
situation-specific considerations, e.g., the researcher's resource constraint,
including time.
With the
additional conceptual clarification made, the writer now moves on to examine the
desired quality attributes of applied business research dissertation reports which
ALRA is argued here to be good at promoting.
How the AlRA could help in achieving the Desired
quality attributes of an applied business research dissertation report
Doing
literature review for research project is application domain 1 the ALRA. There
are benefits and costs in terms of the ability to achieve certain desired
quality attributes of applied business research projects by being agile in the
literature review approach. For identifying desirable quality attributes, one
can refer to the assessment criteria and marking guidelines on dissertation
reports that are specified in the dissertation guides of universities. Examples
of these criteria could include: (i) relevance, (ii) knowledge, (iii) analysis,
(iv) argument and structure, (v) critical evaluation, (vi) presentation and
(vii) relevance to literature. These criteria are not confined to the quality evaluation
of literature review performance in
dissertation work, but instead cover the quality assessment of the whole
dissertation report. In this case, for an evaluation of literature review in an
applied business research dissertation report using the ALRA, there is a need
to come up with a specific set of quality attributes for assessment purpose. The
quality attributes chosen by the writer are (i) cohesiveness of reasoning
throughout the dissertation report, (ii)
holistic and conceptually rich comprehension of the management topic and
concern under investigation, (iii) generation of knowledge of good actionable
(practical) value and academic value, and, finally, (iv) clear and organized
expression of dissertation report content in written form. They are chosen as
they more clearly reveal the benefits of using the ALRA. An elaboration of
these quality attributes are as follows:
Desired quality attribute 1: Cohesiveness of reasoning throughout the
dissertation report: The main deliverable from ALRA Step 4 (ideas systemic
diagramming) is the integrated theoretical framework. It captures a set of
academic and situation-specific management ideas perceived by the ALRA user to
be relevant to address his/her research objectives and management issues. The
framework, being a set of cohesive ideas as worked out by the ALRA user, should
foster reasoning cohesiveness in the dissertation report writing.
Desired quality attribute 2: Holistic and conceptually rich comprehension
of the management topic and concern under investigation: Via contemporary systems
thinking, especially critical systems thinking, the ALRA user is encouraged to
construct a theoretical framework that facilitates conceptually rich comprehension
of the systemic property of a chosen set of ideas. A more holistic intellectual
knowledge on a management topic, in turn, enables a more complicated
understanding of the management concern under investigation. [Critical systems
thinking and its associated methodology are also useful for informing practitioners to tackle management concern(s)
with creative holism, though this topic is outside the scope of discussion
here.]
Desired quality attribute 3: Generation of knowledge of good actionable
(practical) value and academic value: The ALRA theoretical framework is
formulated with a strong concern-driven as well as transdisciplinary orientation.
With embracement of such orientation, the ALRA channels the ALRA user's main
attention toward theoretical framework-informed and management concern-driven
research design and analysis of findings. All these research efforts, i.e., literature review,
research design and findings analysis, become aligned on the generation of management
knowledge of good actionable value. At the same time, certain academic value is
created with the ALRA application conducted with Action Research and the
academic literature-informed theoretical framework.
Desired quality attribute 4: Clear and organized expression of
dissertation report content in written form: Although the ALRA itself does
not offer specific guidelines on dissertation writing skills nor on applied
research methods, the theoretical framework formulated with the ALRA helps the
ALRA users to clarify, justify and organize various discussion items, e.g., the
research objectives, the literature review chapter, and the research method chapter, of the dissertation
report written content. This is achieved by explicitly relating these discussion
items to the theoretical framework, which is shown vividly in a diagram. As a
result, dissertation report readers are better able to figure out how the
management concerns, literature review, research methods used, findings and
analysis and recommendations of the dissertation report are associated with each other with
reference to the theoretical framework. The
framework in this case serves as an encompassing conceptual roadmap for the dissertation
report readers. This itself improves the usability quality of the dissertation
report. In short, the written report content appears more organized and its
ideas more clearly expressed to its readers.
The four
quality attributes are complementary with the theoretical framework (or ideas
systemic diagram) playing a pivotal role. It needs to be emphasized that a well
constructed theoretical framework reflects useful managerial intellectual
learning on the ALRA users' part.
On the
costs and weaknesses of the ALRA, as revealed by the study on the academic
literature review ideas (re: Table 2), the ALRA is not capable to match the
review vigor of the heavy-weight literature review approaches, especially those
cogently driven by academic interest.
These costs and weaknesses are more clearly shown in terms of
comprehensiveness, user bias reduction,
and quantification of research idea patterns, etc.. In this regard, the methodological
weaknesses of the ALRA have to be recognized by the ALRA users. The ALRA is
obviously not a silver bullet to address all kinds of literature review objectives
and challenges.
Concluding remarks
From the
outset, ALRA I is formulated to serve researchers with certain profile and
under certain conditions: (i) novice researcher, (ii) weak intellectual
competence to do applied business research work, (iii) tight research project
time constraint, and (iv) poverty with time. That is why the approach is an agile
one in the first place. For research projects that (i) demand comprehensive and
vigorous literature review on a specific academic management topic and (ii)
primarily target for the academic community, and (iii) focus principally on
delivering academic value, not practical value, the ALRA is not the appropriate choice. As to ALRA II, it
is more related to the long-term intellectual competence development via study
of contemporary systems thinking by the ALRA users. The ALRA II users are
expected to be aspiring or mature scholar-practitioners with a keen interest to
learn contemporary systems thinking. In this regard, the ALRA I is a learning tool
for ALRA II.
The
intellectual endeavor to develop the ALRA is going to be a long research
venture. Ho (2017) represents the initiation phase of this venture. This
article is a follow-up one on it, involving some further clarification of the
characteristics, underlying thinking and quality attributes of the ALRA. Foreseeably, additional theoretical advancement on the
ALRA could also be made via the Action Research pathway by applying the ALRA
together with the writer's students doing Applied Business Research projects.
References
Agilemanifesto.org.
n.d. Manifesto for Agile Software Development (URL address: http://agilemanifesto.org/)
[visited at September 30, 2017].
Alvesson
M, Sandberg J. 2011. Generating research questions through problematization Academy of Management Review
36(2):
247–271.
Cronin P, Ryan F, Coughlan M. 2008. Undertaking
a literature review: a step-by-step approach British Journal of Nursing 17(1): 38-43.
Ho JKK.
2017. On the agile literature review approach for practising managers: a
proposal Systems Research and Behavioral
Science, Wiley [to be published].
Kahn P, Wareham T, Young R, Willis I, Pilkington
R. 2008. Exploring a practitioner‐based interpretive approach to
reviewing research literature International
Journal of Research & Method in Education 31(2): 169-180.
Rowe F. 2014. What literature review is not:
diversity, boundaries and recommendations European
Journal of Information Systems 23, Operational Research Society: 241-255.
Rowley J, Slack F. 2004. Conducting a
literature review Management Research
News 27(6): 31-39.
Zorn T, Campbell N. 2006. Improving the Writing of
Literature Reviews Through A Literature Integration Exercise Business Communication Quarterly 69(2), June: 172-183.
