The systematic review in the field of management sciences

• Autorzy: Amjad Ayesha , Kordel Piotr , Fernandes Gabriela

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.29119/1641-3466.2023.170.1

• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

Purpose: A literature review is a thorough summary of the prior research in a topic that has been carried out by other scientists. For a novice researcher, a systematic literature review is the most important and standard step. The scientific discipline determines the methodology for systematic literature reviews. Design/methodology/approach: A comprehensive overview of the literature relevant to a research issue is provided by a systematic literature review, which also synthesizes earlier work to broaden our understanding of a particular topic. It adheres to the principles of accessibility and bias reduction. Although management research is a growing, complex, and dynamic field, relatively little has been published on how management researchers may employ systematic literature reviews Findings: This systematic review on a clearly defined subject that uses systematic and explicit processes to identify, select, and critically assess relevant research, and to acquire and analyse data from the research projects that are part of the review. Practical implications: In order to comprehend the purpose of systematic reviews, we explain one and talk about its rationale. Next, we discuss how conducting systematic literature reviews may enhance management research and correct its shortcomings. We provide a thorough manual to do systematic literature reviews, outlining the steps to follow and providing advice for effective implementation Originality/value: This review article, focus on the methodology adopted for the literature review in the field of management sciences.

Słowa kluczowe

EN

systematic review; methodology; management sciences

PL

przegląd systematyczny; metodologia; nauki o zarządzaniu

• Wydawca: Wydawnictwo Politechniki Śląskiej
• Czasopismo: Zeszyty Naukowe. Organizacja i Zarządzanie / Politechnika Śląska
• Rocznik: 2023
• Tom: z. 170
• Strony: 9--35
• Opis fizyczny: Bibliogr. 74 poz.

Twórcy

autor

Amjad Ayesha

• Faculty of Organization and Management, Silesian University of Technology

• https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1763-3229

autor

Kordel Piotr

• Faculty of Organization and Management, Silesian University of Technology

• https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3610-830X

autor

Fernandes Gabriela

• Centre for Mechanical Engineering, Materials and Processes (CEMMPRE) University of Coimbra, Portugal

• https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2715-9826

Bibliografia

• 1. AACSB (2019). 2020 Standards for AACSB business accreditation, exposure draft 1. Available from: https://www.aacsb.edu/accreditation/business-accreditationtask-force/ exposure-draft.
• 2. Abutabenjeh, S., Jaradat, R. (2018). Clarification of research design, research methods, and research methodology: A guide for public administration researchers and practitioners. Teaching Public Administration, 36(3), 237-258.
• 3. Adams, R., Bessant, J., Phelps, R. (2006). Innovation management measurement: A review. International Journal of Management Reviews, 8(1), 21-47.
• 4. Adams, R.J., Smart, P., Huff, A.S. (2017). Shades of grey: Guidelines for working with the grey literature in systematic reviews for management and organizational studies. International Journal of Management Reviews, 19(4), 432-454.
• 5. Baumeister, R.F. (2013). Writing a literature review. In: M.J. Prinstein, M.D. Patterson (Eds.), The portable mentor: Expert guide to a successful career in psychology (pp. 119-132). New York: Springer Science Business Media.
• 6. Bergh, D.D., Sharp, B.M., Aguinis, H., Li, M. (2017). Is there a credibility crisis in strategic management research? Evidence on the reproducibility of study findings. Strategic Organization, 15(3), 423-436.
• 7. Bettis, R.A. (2012). The search for asterisks: Compromised statistical tests and flawed theories. Strategic Management Journal, 33(1), 108-113.
• 8. Bettis, R.A., Ethiraj, S., Gambardella, A., Helfat, C., Mitchell, W. (2016). Creating repeatable cumulative knowledge in strategic management: A call for a broad and deep conversation among authors, referees, and editors. Strategic Management Journal, 37(2), 257-261.
• 9. Bosco, F.A., Aguinis, H., Field, J.G., Pierce, C.A., Dalton, D.R. (2016). HARKing’s threat to organizational research: Evidence from primary and meta-analytic sources. Personnel Psychology, 69(3), 709-750.
• 10. Brereton, P., Kitchenham, B.A., Budgen, D., Turner, M., Khalil, M. (2007). Lessons from applying the systematic literature review process within the software engineering domain. Journal of Systems and Software, 80(4), 571-583.
• 11. Briner, R.B., Denyer, D. (2012). Systematic review and evidence synthesis as a practice and scholarship tool. In: D.M. Rousseau (Ed.), Oxford Handbook of evidence-based management: Companies, classrooms and research (pp. 112-129). Oxford, England, UK: Oxford University Press.
• 12. Briner, R.B., Denyer, D., Rousseau, D.M. (2009). Evidence-based management: Concept cleanup time? Academy of Management Perspectives, 23(4), 19-32.
• 13. Calabro, A., Vecchiarini, M., Gast, J., Campopiano, G., De Massis, A., Kraus, S. (2019). Innovation in family firms: A systematic literature review and guidance for future research. International Journal of Management Reviews, 21(3), 317-355.
• 14. Cassiman, B., Valentini, G. (2009). Strategic organization of R&D: the choice of basicness and openness. Strategic Organization, 7(1), 43-73.
• 15. Castro, A.A. (2001) Revisão sistemática e meta-análise. Compacta: temas de cardiologia, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 5-9.
• 16. Cicognani, A. (2000). Concept mapping as a collaborative tool for enhanced online learning. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 3(3), 150-158.
• 17. Conz, E., Magnani, G. (2019). A dynamic perspective on the resilience of firms: A systematic literature review and a framework for future research. European Management Journal.
• 18. Dada, O. (2018). A model of entrepreneurial autonomy in franchised outlets: A systematic review of the empirical evidence. International Journal of Management Reviews, 20(2), 206-226.
• 19. de Araújo Lima, P.F., Crema, M., Verbano, C. (2019). Risk management in SMEs: A systematic literature review and future directions. European Management Journal, 78e94.
• 20. Donaldson, C. (2019). Intentions resurrected: A systematic review of entrepreneurial intention research from 2014 to 2018 and future research agenda. The International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 15(3), 953-975.
• 21. Dorn, S., Schweiger, B., Albers, S. (2016). Levels, phases and themes of coopetition: A systematic literature review and research agenda. European Management Journal, 34(5), 484-500.
• 22. Durach, C.F., Kembro, J., Wieland, A. (2017). A new paradigm for systematic literature reviews in supply chain management. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 53(4), 67-85.
• 23. Eden, D. (2002). From the editors: Replication, meta-analysis, scientific progress, and AMJ’s publication policy. Academy of Management Journal, 841-846.
• 24. Fisch, C., Block, J. (2018). Six tips for your (systematic) literature review in business and management research. Management Review Quarterly, 68(2), 103-106.
• 25. Frank, H., Hatak, I. (2014). Doing a research literature review. How to get published in the best entrepreneurship journals. 94-117.
• 26. Ganann, R., Ciliska, D., Thomas, H. (2010). Expediting systematic reviews: methods and implications of rapid reviews. Implement Sci., 5, 56.
• 27. Hart, C. (2018). Doing a Literature Review: Releasing the Research Imagination. Management sciences reviews sage 4(1), 3-4.
• 28. Higgins, J.P.T., Green, S. (2011). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration. Available from: http://www.handbook.cochrane.org.
• 29. Hunter, J.E. (1997). Needed: A ban on the significance test. Psychological Science,8(1), 3-7.
• 30. Ioannidis, J.P. (2005b). Contradicted and initially stronger effects in highly cited (continued) Step 3 e Conducting the Review: Determining which Articles from the Search to Include, and Gathering Knowledge Re-review the articles/literature to ensure a consistent application of the inclusion criteria as a full SRRT.
• 31. Jackson, K.M., Trochim, W.M. (2002). Concept mapping as an alternative approach for the analysis of open-ended survey responses. Organizational Research Methods, 5(4), 307-336.
• 32. Jesson, J., Matheson, L., Lacey, F.M. (2011). Doing your literature review: Traditional and systematic techniques. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage.
• 33. Junker, N.M., Van Dick, R. (2014). Implicit theories in organizational settings: A systematic review and research agenda of implicit leadership and followership theories. The Leadership Quarterly, 25(6), 1154-1173.
• 34. Kerr, N.L. (1998). HARKing: Hypothesizing after the results are known. Personality And Social Psychology Review, 2(3), 196-217.
• 35. Keupp, M.M., Palmié, M., Gassmann, O. (2012). The strategic management of innovation: A systematic review and paths for future research. International Journal of Management Reviews, 14(4), 367- 390. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2370.2011.00321.x.
• 36. Khosravi, P., Newton, C., Rezvani, A. (2019). Management innovation: A systematic review and meta-analysis of past decades of research. European Management Journal, 694-707.
• 37. Kohler, T., Cortina, J.M. (2019). Play it again, Sam! an analysis of constructive € replication in the organizational sciences. Journal of Management, Article 0149206319843985.
• 38. Kotera, Y., Sheffield, D., Van Gordon, W. (2019). The applications of neuro-linguistic programming in organizational settings: A systematic review of psychological outcomes. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 30(1), 101-116.
• 39. Kvarven, A., Strømland, E., Johannesson, M. (2020). Comparing meta-analyses and preregistered multiple-laboratory replication projects. Nature Human Behaviour, 4(4), 423-434.
• 40. Linnenluecke, M.K., Marrone, M., Singh, A.K. (2020). Conducting systematic literature reviews and bibliometric analyses. Australian Journal of Management, 45(2), 175-194.
• 41. Lueg, R., Radlach, R. (2016). Managing sustainable development with management control systems: A literature review. European Management Journal, 34(2), 158-171.
• 42. Lune, H., Berg, B.L. (2017). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences. Pearson.
• 43. McGowan, J., Sampson, M. (2005). Systematic reviews need systematic searchers. Journal Of the Medical Library Association, 93(1), 74.
• 44. McKinley, W. (2010). Organizational theory development: Displacement of ends? Organization Studies, 31(1), 47-68.
• 45. McKinley, W., Wood, M.S., Moon, G. (2011). Low heed in organization theory. M@n@gement, 14(3), 154e181.
• 46. McLeod, M.S., Payne, G.T., Evert, R.E. (2016). Organizational ethics research: A systematic review of methods and analytical techniques. Journal of Business Ethics, 134(3), 429-443.
• 47. Meyers, R.A. (Ed.) (2009). Encyclopedia of Complexity and Systems Science. New York: Springer, pp. 1-32.
• 48. Mulrow, C.D. (1994). Systematic reviews: Rationale for systematic reviews. BMJ, 309(6954), 597-599.
• 49. O’Boyle, E.H. Jr., Banks, G.C., Gonzalez-Mule, E. (2017). The chrysalis effect: How ugly initial results metamorphosize into beautiful articles. Journal of Management, 43(2), 376-399.
• 50. Orlitzky, M. (2011). Institutionalized dualism: Statistical significance testing as myth and ceremony. Journal of Management Control, 22(1), 47-77.
• 51. Osareh, F. (1996). Bibliometrics, citation analysis and co-citation analysis: A review of literature I. Libri. International Journal of Libraries and Information Services, 46(3), 149-158.
• 52. Oxman, A.D. (1994). Systematic reviews: Checklists for review articles. BMJ, 309(6955), 648-651.
• 53. Pati, D., Lorusso, L.N. (2018). How to write a systematic review of the literature. HERD: Health Environments Research & Design Journal, 11(1), 15-30.
• 54. Paul, J., Criado, A.R. (2020). The art of writing literature review: What do we know and what do we need to know? International Business Review, 1e7.
• 55. Petticrew, M. (2001). Systematic reviews from astronomy to zoology: Myths and misconceptions. BMJ, 322(7278), 98-101.
• 56. Piper, R.J. (2013). How to write a systematic literature review: A guide for medical students. National AMR, Fostering Medical Research, 1e8. syntheses (SSRN scholarly paper 130n09606). Rochester, NY: Social science research network.
• 57. Popay, J., Roberts, H., Sowden, A., Petticrew, M., Arai, L., Rodgers, M., Duffy, S. (2006). Guidance on the conduct of narrative synthesis in systematic reviews. A product from the ESRC methods programme Version, 1(1), b92.
• 58. Randolph, J. (2009). A guide to writing the dissertation literature review. Practical assessment, research, and evaluation, 14(1), 13.
• 59. Ridley, D. (2012). The literature review: A step-by-step guide for students.
• 60. Sampaio, R.F., Mancini, M.C. (2007). Systematic review studies: A guide for careful synthesis of the scientific evidence. Brazilian Journal of Physical Therapy, 11(1), 83-89.
• 61. Siddaway, A. (2014). What is a systematic literature review and how do I do one (Vol. I). University of Stirling, p. 1e13.
• 62. Siddaway, A.P., Wood, A.M., Hedges, L.V. (2019). How to do a systematic review: A best practice guide for conducting and reporting narrative reviews, metaanalyses, and meta-syntheses. Annual Review of Psychology, 70, 747-770.
• 63. Simmons, J.P., Nelson, L.D., Simonsohn, U. (2011). False-positive psychology: Undisclosed flexibility in data collection and analysis allows presenting anything as significant. Psychological Science, 22(11), 1359-1366.
• 64. Splenda, R. (2020). Systematic Reviews in Business & Management: A New Role for Business Librarians. Ticker: The Academic Business Librarianship Review, 4(2).
• 65. Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., Smart, P. (2003). Towards a methodology for developing evidence‐informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. British journal of management, 14(3), 207-222.
• 66. Tricco A.C., Antony, J., Zarin. W., Strifler. L., Ghassemi, M., Ivory, J., et al. (2015). A scoping review of rapid review methods. BMC Med., 13, 224.
• 67. Trochim, W.M. (1989). An introduction to concept mapping for planning and evaluation. Evaluation and Program Planning, 12(1), 1-16.
• 68. Tsafnat, G., Glasziou, P., Choong, M.K., Dunn, A., Galgani, F., Coiera, E. (2014). Systematic review automation technologies. Systematic Reviews, 3(1), 74.
• 69. Van Lange, P., Liebrand, A.M. (2015). Introduction and literature review. Social dilemmas. 3-28.
• 70. Van Maanen, J. (1979). Reclaiming qualitative methods for organizational research: A preface. Administrative Science Quarterly, vol. 24, no. 4, pp. 520-526.
• 71. Webster, J., Watson, R.T. (2002). Analyzing the past to prepare for the future: Writing a literature review. MIS quarterly, xiii-xxiii.
• 72. Weick, K.E., Sutcliffe, K.M., Obstfeld, D. (2005). Organizing and the process of sense making. Organization Science, 16(4), 409-421.
• 73. Williams R.I. Jr., Clark, L.A., Clark, W.R. et al. (nd). 12 clinical research. Jama, 294(2), 218-228.
• 74. Xiao, Y., Watson, M. (2019). Guidance on conducting a systematic literature review. Journal of planning education and research, 39(1), 93-112.

Uwagi

PL

Opracowanie rekordu ze środków MNiSW, umowa nr SONP/SP/546092/2022 w ramach programu "Społeczna odpowiedzialność nauki" - moduł: Popularyzacja nauki i promocja sportu (2024).