The document discusses the different types of literature reviews in academic research, highlighting their purposes and the importance of theoretical contributions. It outlines common reasons for rejection of review papers and provides guidelines for crafting effective literature reviews and conceptual articles. The document emphasizes the need for originality, clarity, and relevance in both literature reviews and theoretical contributions to enhance the impact of research work.

1. Surviving
the
PhD
2014
Edi4on:
How
to
Write
a
Literature
Review
Marcel
Bogers
marcelbogers.com
@bogers
November
3,
2014
Scuola
Superiore
Sant'Anna,
Pisa,
Italy

2. www.phdcomics.com/comics/
archive.php?comicid=715

3. Three
types
of
“review”
• A
literature
review
– Part
of
an
empirical
study
• A
review
ar4cle
– Stand-­‐alone
review
paper
• A
conceptual/theore4cal
ar4cle
– Non-­‐empirical
theory
paper

4. A
Literature
Review

5. What
is
a
literature
review?
• Is
it
an
end
or
a
means?
• Framework
for
empirical
study
– Hypotheses
– (Implicit)
model
– How
to
do
it?
• Analysis
&
results
– Relate
results
back
to
(original)
literature
– Extend
review
to
discover
other
relevant
areas
• Contribu4on
to
theory

6. The
t-­‐word!
• Concepts
&
causal
mechanisms
• What
cons4tutes
a
theore4cal
contribu4on?
– Two
dimensions
(Corley
&
Gioia,
2011
AMR):
• Originality:
revelatory
vs
incremental
• U4lity:
scien4fic
vs
prac4cal
• A
literature
review
offers:
– Theore4cal
background
of
empirical
study
– Basis
for
developing
&
explaining
theore4cal
contribu4on

7. A
Review
Ar4cle

8. Why
write
a
review
paper?
• First
step
in
research
project
(sunk
cost)
• Brings
together
different
streams/
perspec4ves
• Good
way
to
synthesize
and
cri4que
exis4ng
literature
(and
to
build
on
that)
– Helps
to
find
&
develop
your
contribu4on
– Adds
value
to
readership
(read:
cita4ons
J)
• However:
”review”
≠
”review
paper”
• Can
be
difficult
to
publish
– How
to
get
it
rejected?

9. Reasons
for
rejec8on
at
IJMR
(Jones
&
Catrell,
2014)
Weak
analysis
of
the
literature
–
too
descrip4ve
21%
Poor
coverage
of
the
literature
with
major
gaps
in
key
areas
17%
Focus
of
the
paper
unclear
and
key
concepts
poorly
defined
13%
Methods
poorly
explained
or
inappropriate
5%
Omiled
key
journals
from
review
5%
Topic
too
broad/
narrow
and
paper
poorly
organized
Paper
did
not
make
a
unique
contribu4on
12%
Paper
too
similar
to
exis4ng
literature
reviews
9%
7%
Limited
research
agenda
5%
Other
6%

10. Journal
of
Management’s
call
for
proposals
(2014
Review
Issue)
“Submissions
will
be
evaluated
with
respect
to
the
following
criteria
…
a) Relevance
– The
proposed
manuscript
should
thoroughly
review
a
significant
and
important
research
area
within
the
organiza4onal
sciences.
b) Viability
– The
proposal
should
represent
an
achievable
project
within
the
4ght
4me
constraints
required.
…
c) Scope
of
Interest
– Papers
of
broad
interest
to
scholars
in
a
variety
of
specialty
areas
are
greatly
preferred.
d) Organiza8on
and
Coherence
– The
proposal
should
follow
a
logical
structure,
read
clearly,
and
thoroughly
represent
the
available
research.
e) Insight
for
Future
Work
– The
proposal
should
convey
important
implica4ons
for
future
management
scholars.”

11. Some
guidelines
• Gives
good
overview/summary/report
of
research
field
– State
of
the
literature(s)
– Scope
&
depth
– Brings
something
new
&
adds
value
• Different
styles
and
types
– Systema4c/rigid
vs
qualita4ve/narra4ve-­‐style
– Different
structures
and
outcomes
(cf.
theory)
• Fit
with
the
journal
&
contribu4on
– Audience,
“so
what”,
&
future
research
• See
editorials
for
more
guidelines

12. A
Conceptual/Theore4cal
Ar4cle

13. Wri4ng
(publishing)
a
conceptual/
theore4cal
ar4cle
• Develops
some
sort
of
conceptual
or
theore4cal
model
• The
t-­‐word
– “Theory
is
a
statement
of
concepts
and
their
interrela4onships
that
shows
how
and/or
why
a
phenomenon
occurs”
(Corley
&
Gioia,
2011
AMR)
– ”Theory
is
about
the
connec4ons
among
phenomena,
a
story
about
why
acts,
events,
structure,
and
thoughts
occur.
Theory
emphasizes
the
nature
of
causal
rela4onships
…
.”
(Sulon
&
Staw,
1995
ASQ)
• What
does
it
mean
for
your
paper?
– On
the
level
of
the
construct
(not
opera4onalized)
– May
use
proposi4ons
(cf.
hypotheses)
– Focus
on
theory
• Some
cri4que
&
concern
related
to
theory
– Lille
agreement
on
what
theory
is
(Corley
&
Gioia,
2011
AMR)
– Too
much
of
a
good
thing?
(Hambrick,
2007
AMJ)

14. Surviving
the
PhD:
Good
luck!
Marcel
Bogers
marcelbogers.com
@bogers
www.phdcomics.com/comics/
archive.php?comicid=715