A note of a
contingency guide to employ the three literature review-related secondary
research methods: scoping review, systematic literature review and narrative review: for MBA students
In the context of
doing MBA dissertation projects, there are three kinds of literature-related
secondary research methods: scoping review, narrative review and systematic literature review. Briefly highlight three main ideas of each of these methods and provide
a brief contingency guide on when to use which research method and, if more
than one method is to use, also inform the sequence of their usage.
Scoping review – three main ideas
1.
Purpose: map the
territory
A scoping review aims to identify the breadth, key themes, concepts, and types
of evidence in a broad or emerging area, rather than answer a narrow,
evaluative question.
2.
Question: broad
and exploratory
Typical questions are of the form “What has been studied about X?” or “How has
concept Y been defined and operationalised?” rather than “Does intervention A
improve outcome B?”.
3.
Method: structured
but not deeply evaluative
It usually involves a transparent, comprehensive search with explicit inclusion
criteria and standardised data charting, but often does not undertake formal
critical appraisal or meta-analysis.
For MBA
dissertations, scoping reviews are particularly useful when your topic is wide
(e.g. “digital transformation in SMEs” or “affordable housing policies in Asian
cities”) and you need to understand how the literature is structured, where the
gaps are, and how to narrow your research question.
Narrative review – three main ideas
1.
Purpose: tell the
story and build an argument
A narrative review synthesises and interpretively discusses existing literature
to build a conceptual or theoretical narrative around a topic, often leading to
a conceptual framework or set of propositions.
2.
Question:
integrative and often theory‑driven
It typically addresses “How can we understand X?” or “What theoretical
perspectives explain Y?” and is common in introductory chapters of
dissertations to position your study and justify your hypotheses or research
model.
3.
Method: flexible
and interpretive, less formalised
The search may be broad but is not necessarily exhaustive; methods are more
flexible, allowing critical commentary, theory comparison, and integration of
diverse sources, with less emphasis on replicability and more on coherence of
argument.
In MBA work,
narrative reviews are the default for many dissertations: they help you connect
theories (e.g. TPB, TAM, service-dominant logic, housing affordability
frameworks) and build a persuasive rationale for your research design.
Systematic literature review [also called systematic review] – three main ideas
1.
Purpose: answer a
precise question with minimum bias
A systematic review aims to comprehensively collect and critically appraise
studies to answer a specific, well-defined question (e.g. “What is the effect
of loyalty programmes on repeat purchase behaviour in retail banking?”).
2.
Question: narrow,
focused, and often evaluative
It suits questions about relationships, effects, or impacts, especially when
you need evidence-based conclusions (and possibly meta-analysis), such as “Do
financial literacy interventions improve investment performance among retail
investors?”
3.
Method: highly
structured, protocol‑driven
It follows a pre‑specified protocol: exhaustive searches, explicit
inclusion/exclusion criteria, multiple reviewers, critical appraisal of study
quality, and transparent reporting, ideally allowing replication and formal
synthesis (quantitative or qualitative).
In an MBA
dissertation, a full systematic review is more demanding but powerful if you
have a narrow question, a mature body of empirical work, and sufficient time
and supervisory support.
Contingency guide: when to use which, and in
what sequence
Think of these
three as tools for different levels of focus and rigour:
1.
Use a scoping
review when:
o Your topic is broad, complex, or emerging,
and you are still refining the research question.
o You suspect multiple sub‑topics, theories, or
methodological traditions and want to map them.
o You need to identify gaps or promising niches
for an MBA‑scale study.
Typical sequence:
o Start with a scoping review early in the
project to map the field and narrow your focus.
o Follow it with a narrative review that zooms
in on the most relevant themes and theories for your final research question.
2.
Use a narrative
review when:
o You already have a reasonably defined
topic/question and now need to build a strong theoretical and conceptual
foundation.
o Your aim is to construct a conceptual
framework, articulate hypotheses or research questions, and position your study
within existing debates.
o Your dissertation is primarily empirical
(survey, interviews, case study), and the literature review chapter must
explain and justify your design rather than be a stand‑alone evidence
synthesis.
Typical sequence:
o A narrative review can stand alone (most
common in MBA dissertations).
o Or follow after a scoping review (scoping =
map, narrative = interpret and theorise).
3.
Use a systematic
review when:
o Your research question is narrow and
evaluative (e.g. effectiveness of a strategy, strength of a relationship).
o There is a substantial body of empirical
work, allowing robust synthesis.
o The dissertation itself is intended to be a
stand‑alone evidence synthesis, possibly publishable, rather than a typical
mixed‑methods project.
Possible sequences when combining methods:
o Scoping → Systematic → Narrative
§ Scoping review to determine whether a systematic
review is feasible and to refine the precise review question.
§ Systematic review to rigorously answer that
question and synthesise empirical findings.
§ Narrative review (or narrative integration
chapter) to interpret the systematic review’s findings, connect them to broader
theories, and draw managerial or policy implications.
o Narrative → Systematic (less common in dissertations, more in
programmes of research)
§ A narrative review first to establish
conceptual background and identify candidate relationships.
§ Then a systematic review targeting one of
these relationships in depth.
4.
Pragmatic guidance
for MBA dissertations:
o If your dissertation is typical
empirical MBA work (survey, qualitative interviews, case studies),
your core literature component will usually be a narrative review,
perhaps enriched with some scoping‑style mapping for transparency.
o If your topic is very broad or
emerging (e.g. fintech in social housing finance, ESG investing in
Asian REITs), consider an initial scoping review to show how you
narrowed the topic and identified gaps.
o If your supervisor encourages an evidence‑synthesis
dissertation and the field is mature (e.g. service quality and
customer satisfaction in retail banking), a systematic review could
be your main methodology, supplemented by narrative discussion of theories and
implications.
Do different research types (i.e. descriptive research,
exploratory research, causal research and evaluation research) tend to favor a
particular literature review-related secondary research method (i.e. scoping
review, systematic review and narrative review)?
Short answer: there are tendencies, but not
hard rules
Different research
types do tend to align with particular review methods, because the logic
of the research question (broad vs narrow, exploratory vs evaluative) fits
better with some forms of secondary research than others. But the match is
contingent rather than deterministic: a single research type can legitimately
be supported by more than one review method depending on scope, maturity of the
field, and dissertation constraints.guides.mclibrary.duke+2
Below is a
pragmatic MBA‑oriented mapping.
Exploratory research
Exploratory
research asks broad, open questions to understand “what is going on”, “how is
this phenomenon conceptualised”, or “what issues exist in this space”.
- Favoured
review type: scoping review
Because exploratory work needs to map concepts, methods, and gaps rather than test specific hypotheses, scoping reviews are naturally aligned; they assess the extent, nature, and heterogeneity of the literature and highlight gaps.guides.mclibrary.duke+1 - Supplementary
review type: narrative review
Once the broad terrain is mapped, narrative synthesis is useful to interpret key themes and build a preliminary conceptual model or set of propositions for later empirical work.support.covidence
Typical sequence
for an exploratory MBA project:
1.
Scoping review to
map the field (e.g. “What has been studied about ESG integration in Asian
REITs?”).
2.
Narrative review
to interpret major themes, theories, and gaps, leading to refined research
questions or a conceptual framework.
Descriptive research
Descriptive
research aims to characterise patterns, profiles, or relationships without
necessarily inferring causality (e.g. profiling customer segments, documenting
housing affordability patterns).ncbi.nlm.nih
- Favoured
review type: narrative review
Descriptive projects usually require a coherent account of what is known about variables, constructs, and patterns; narrative reviews have enough flexibility to integrate theoretical, empirical, and contextual work without the heavy protocol of a systematic review.support.covidence - Optional:
scoping elements
If the topic is wide or fragmented (e.g. many different segmentations or measurement approaches), incorporating scoping‑style mapping at the start helps justify how you narrowed the descriptive focus.libguides.library.tmc
Typical sequence
for a descriptive MBA project:
1.
Brief
scoping-style mapping (even if not labelled formally) to understand range of
approaches.
2.
Narrative review
focusing on key constructs, measures, and descriptive findings in your chosen
context (e.g. Hong Kong housing stress indicators).
Causal research
Causal research
investigates whether X causes Y, or the strength/direction of causal
relationships (e.g. “Does perceived service quality cause customer loyalty in
retail banking?”).onlinelibrary.wiley
- Favoured
review type: systematic review
Where the literature is mature enough, systematic reviews are designed to collate and critically appraise empirical evidence to answer clearly formulated causal questions, minimising bias and allowing stronger causal inference.guides.mclibrary.duke+1 - Supplementary:
narrative review
Narrative synthesis can interpret findings, compare theories of causality (e.g. different behavioural models), and discuss mechanisms, moderators, and boundary conditions.onlinelibrary.wiley
Typical sequence
for a causal MBA project (if feasible):
1.
Scoping review (or
extensive preliminary search) to check whether a systematic review is warranted
and to refine the causal question.
2.
Systematic review
focusing on studies of the causal relationship of interest.
3.
Narrative
integration to interpret causal evidence, connect to theory, and derive
implications for practice or further experimentation.
Evaluation research
Evaluation
research assesses the effectiveness or impacts of programmes, policies, or
interventions (e.g. evaluating a financial literacy initiative or a housing
subsidy scheme).youtubelibguides.library.tmc
- Favoured
review type: systematic review
Because evaluation questions typically focus on “what works, for whom, and under what conditions”, systematic reviews (and sometimes rapid or umbrella reviews) are widely used to support evidence‑based evaluation and policy decisions.libguides.library.tmc - Supplementary:
narrative or realist‑style review
Narrative or realist reviews help unpack mechanisms, contexts, and implementation issues, especially when interventions are complex and the evidence is heterogeneous.onlinelibrary.wiley+1
Typical sequence
for an evaluation‑focused MBA project:
1.
Scoping review to
assess the range and types of evaluations conducted in the area.
2.
Systematic review
(or systematized review, given MBA constraints) of intervention effectiveness.
3.
Narrative/realist
discussion of mechanisms, contextual factors, and recommendations for practice.
Putting it together: tendencies in one table
|
Research type |
Typical question focus |
Favoured review method |
Common sequence (MBA context) |
|
|||
|
Research type |
Typical question focus |
Favoured review method |
Common sequence (MBA context) |
||||
|
Exploratory |
Broad,
“what/why/how” |
Scoping →
Narrative |
Map field, then
interpret themes and propose framework.guides.mclibrary.duke+1 |
||||
|
Descriptive |
Patterns,
profiles |
Narrative (with
scoping elements) |
Map key
measures/approaches, then narratively synthesise findings.support.covidence+1 |
||||
|
Causal |
“Does X cause
Y?” |
Systematic (+
Narrative) |
Scoping to
assess feasibility → systematic review → narrative integration.onlinelibrary.wiley+1 |
||||
|
Evaluation |
“Does
intervention work?” |
Systematic (+
Narrative/Realist) |
Scoping →
systematic (or systematized) review → narrative/realist discussion.libguides.library.tmcyoutube |
||||
Note these are tendencies:
for example, an exploratory study in a very narrow, well‑researched niche might
justify a mini‑systematic review, while a causal MBA project with sparse
literature may have to rely on a narrative review with explicit limitations.
No comments:
Post a Comment