A note of some practical literature review advices to MBA students doing dissertation projects

A note of some practical literature review advices to MBA students doing dissertation projects

 

In the context of doing literature review and using literature review findings to inform the whole four-month dissertation projects done by my Hong Kong part-time MBA students, as a lecturer, I find it useful to offer some specific literature review advices to the students. Consider the following considerations for most of these dissertation projects: based on pragmatism; exploratory research; using 3 to 4 academic theories with useful analytic steps and techniques; dissertation related academic concepts as also compared with very similar concepts used in a particular business settings. These students are not able to conduct vigorous nor comprehensive literature review. Could you offer 5 practical literature review advices to them?

 

Based on your context—pragmatist, exploratory MBA dissertations in Hong Kong, 3–4 theories, limited time and scope—here are five practical literature review advices you can give your students:

1. Define a tight “concept boundary” before searching

Because students cannot do comprehensive reviews, they should explicitly limit the scope of their literature review to:

• A clear business problem (e.g., “low repeat purchase in a HK retail bank”)
• 3–4 specific academic concepts/theories they plan to use (e.g., service quality, perceived value, trust, loyalty)
• A time window (e.g., 2015–2026) and a few key journals or databases.libguides.hull.ac+1

Ask them to write a one-paragraph “concept boundary statement” such as:

“This review focuses on academic work on service quality, perceived value, trust and loyalty in retail banking and related consumer services (2015–2026), with emphasis on studies in Asia where possible, to inform an exploratory study of customer retention in a Hong Kong bank.”

This prevents endless searching and keeps the review aligned with the four-month project timeline.libguides.hull.ac

2. Use a “funnel + theory” structure, not a comprehensive survey

Given their constraints, students should adopt a funnel structure that moves from broad to focused, but organised around their chosen theories rather than trying to cover everything:libguides.hull.ac

• Top of funnel (brief): 5–8 key papers that position the topic in the wider field (e.g., why customer retention matters in banking; general models of loyalty).libguides.hull.ac
• Middle of funnel: 10–15 papers grouped by each of the 3–4 theories (e.g., a section on service quality models, another on perceived value in services, etc.).libguides.hull.ac
• Bottom of funnel: 5–8 very close studies (similar industry/region/problem) that directly inform their research questions and design.libguides.hull.ac

This structure helps them show they understand the field without needing a truly comprehensive review.libguides.brown+1

3. Build a simple synthesis matrix for each theory

To make the literature actionable for analysis, each student should create a small synthesis matrix (e.g., in Excel) for each theory, with columns such as:

• Author/year
• Context (industry/country)
• Key constructs and definitions
• Method (qual/quant/mixed; sample)
• Main findings
• How this study’s use of the concept differs from their business case

This achieves two things:

• It forces synthesis instead of “list of summaries”.owl.purdue+1
• It directly supports later analytic steps: they can see which constructs are most relevant, which relationships are supported, and where their business setting may differ.libguides.brown

You can require each student to submit these matrices as an appendix, so you can quickly check depth and relevance.

4. Explicitly distinguish academic concepts from “similar” business terms

Since you want them to compare academic concepts with how similar terms are used in a particular business setting, have them add a short subsection for each theory:

• Academic definition: 2–4 sentences summarising how the concept is defined and operationalised in the literature (citing 2–4 core sources).libguides.brown+1
• Business usage: 1–2 paragraphs describing how the same or similar term is used in their chosen company/industry (based on internal documents, websites, or interviews), highlighting differences in scope, measurement, or assumptions.
• Implication for analysis: 3–5 bullet points on how this difference affects how they will use the theory in their analysis (e.g., “In the literature, ‘loyalty’ includes attitudinal and behavioural components; in the firm it is measured only by repeat purchase, so we will…”).

This makes the literature review directly useful for the whole project, not just a background chapter, and aligns with a pragmatist stance where usefulness guides concept selection.libguides.brown+1

5. Treat the literature review as iterative and “good enough for decisions”

Given pragmatism and exploratory aims, emphasise that the goal is not an exhaustive, definitive review, but a decision-quality review that:

• Justifies the research question and design.libguides.hull.ac
• Provides enough theoretical grounding to guide data collection and analysis.libguides.brown
• Identifies 2–3 clear gaps or tensions their project will explore.libguides.hull.ac

Practical tactics:

• Set a cap (e.g., 25–35 core papers) and a deadline for the “main” review; after that, only add sources if they clearly change the research design or analysis framework.libguides.brown
• Require a short “living” section at the end of their review: “How this review shaped my research questions and methods,” to be updated as they refine their project.libguides.brown+1

This mindset helps students avoid perfectionism and focus on using the literature to make concrete, pragmatic choices across the four-month project.

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