How to write (and publish) your literature review? This presentations distinguishes between three types and purposes of "review": (1) a literature review, as part of an empirical study; (2) a stand-alone review article; and (3) a conceptual or theoretical (non-empirical) article. For each of theses types, it gives an overview of considerations for getting done and published (or rejected).

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