presentation literature review - welcome - beep · new primary scholarship itself. the primary...
TRANSCRIPT
11
Literature review and content analysis
Lucio Lamberti
Research methodology seminars
September 27th, 2011
• The final work: general concepts
• The final work: structure
• Literature review: general concepts
• The literature review process
22
Agenda
2
THE FINAL WORK
3
What is the final work?
4
The characteristic of the final work
5
People involved in the final work
6
Always When applicable
Types of work
Project (just in CO) Thesis without discussant
Dissertation with discussant and
defence
Possible works •Report on empirical activities (generally,
stages and internships)•Review of state-of-the-art scientific literature on
interesting topics•Development of an entrepreneurial idea
through a business plan
•Empirical testing of an existing, state-of-the-art
scientific framework.•Exploratory, grounded
research•Systematic literature
review
•Disclosing essential new knowledge
•Development of a conceptual/theoretical
framework and empirical testing
Notes The work is evaluated by the supervisor and by another professor
For students enrolled before 2011/2012, methodological seminars are mandatory
The work is evaluated by the supervisor and by the commission
The work is evaluated by the supervisor, a discussant and the commission
Presentation Max 5 minutes Max 10 minutes Max 15 minutes
Efforts and evalutation
8
Type N. meeting (expected) Increment
attainable
Average
effort
Uncertainty
Project (just
in CO)
At least 3 with
supervisors/co-supervisors
-1/+3 on 110 3 f.t. months* Very low
Thesis
without
discussant
Several, periodical meetings
with supervisors/co-
supervisors (5-8 on average)
-1/+5 on 110 6 f.t. months* Average-low (depends on
the empirical exercise)
Research
dissertation
Periodical meetings with
supervisors/co-supervisors
(at least 8-10 on average)
-1/+7 (+8) on 110 9 f.t. months* Average-high (depends on
the quality of the output)
How to apply
9
When to apply?
• When you have enough time
• When you have the idea
• When you have a comprehensive perspective on the fields of interest (generally not before the first two
terms)
10
A typical structure of a research dissertation
11
Generation of essential new knowledge
Short thesis
12
Poor contribution
Poor contribution
Poor contribution
LITERATURE REVIEW
13
Literature review: general concepts
14
•Critical and evaluative report of what has been published on a topic •Aimed at summarizing,
synthesizing and analyzing arguments of others.
•Description and analysis of extant knowledge and detection of gaps in research related to your field of
interest•Reveals similarities and
differences, consistencies and inconsistencies and controversies
in previous research.
•A descriptive list of papers or summaries•A procedure to look for the “best
contribution”•A non value-adding activity
•A way to conclude that a topic is interesting
Literature review: a description/definition
“A literature review uses as its database reports of primary or original scholarship, and does not report
new primary scholarship itself. The primary reports
used in the literature may be verbal, but in the vast majority of cases reports are written documents. The
types of scholarship may be empirical, theoretical, critical/analytic, or methodological in nature. Second
a literature review seeks to describe, summarize, evaluate, clarify and/or integrate the content of
primary reports“
(Cooper, 1988)
15
…hence
• A literature review provides research stakeholders with a twofold outcome:
– Informs about extant wisdom on a topic, by presenting an evidence-informed summary of the results accomplished on specific issues
– Highlights blank or weakly covered areas for grounding incremental studies in the field, justifying further research efforts.
16
How to approach a literature review
17
Problem formulation
• Identification of a relevant problem in the extant managerial or research domain
• It is not an argument for a position or an opinion
18
Good problem statement:“I want to understand how do
marketing and supply chain
management manage their
interfunctional interface”
Bad problem statement:“I want to demonstrate that
marketing and supply chain
management should interact
more than they do”
Choice of the review model
19
Narrative/incremental (“snow puppet”) review
Systematic review
Narrative/incremental review
20
Narrative/incremental review
21
Narrative/incremental review: strengths and weaknesses
Thumb up
• Generally accepted as the mainstream approach
in management
• Creative, potentially richer in results
Thumb down
• The principles for the inclusion of contributions
in the review are affected
by the implicit biases of the researcher
22
Systematic review: characteristics
• development of clear and precise aims and objectives
• pre-planned methods
• comprehensive search of all potentially relevant articles
• use of explicit, reproducible criteria in the selection of articles for review
• appraisal of the quality of the research and the strength of thefindings
• synthesis of individual studies using an explicit analytic framework
• balanced, impartial and comprehensible presentation of the results.
23
Systematic review: an approach (Trandfield et al. 2003)
24
The systematic review approach
25
Possible sources (adapted from Colling, 2003)
Primary sources Report by the original researchers of a study
Secondary sourcesDescription or summary by somebody other than
the original researcher (e.g. review article)
Conceptual or theoretical sources
Papers concerned with the description of
theories/ideas and not empirism
Anecdotal sources Views or opinions that are not research
26
Possible sources of reference
27
http://www.isiwebofknowledge.com/
http://www.jstor.org/
http://scholar.google.it/
http://www.scopus.com/home.url
Watch out: not all the journals have the same authoritativeness
• Indexing and ranking of journals
– ISI Web of knowledge IMPACT FACTOR
– Other rankings (e.g. ABS)
28
Descriptive review
• “Quantitative” review, based on the number of papers/sources published under certain
circumstances
• Useful to emphasize the growth in the debate, the
main contributors, the most/least developed issues,
etc.
• It is a part of the story. Not the story
29
Descriptive review – an example
30
TYPES OF CONTRIBUTION
Conceptual Empirical Literature review
MAIN TOPIC
NPD/NSD
Customer approach to co-creation
Company's approach
Branding
Production
Content analysis (Croning et al. 2008)
Primary sources Secondary sources - reviews Non-research literature
Title Title Title
Author and year Author and year Author and year
Journal (full reference) Journal (full reference) Journal (full reference)
Purpose of the study Purpose of the paper Purpose of the paper
Type of study Key definitions Credibility
Setting Review boundaries Quality
Data collection method Appraisal criteria Content
Major findings Synthesis of studies Coherence
Recommendations Summary/conclusions Recommendations
Key thoughts/comments Key thoughts/comments Key thoughts/comments
31
Possible frames for literature reviews (adapted from: Carnwell and Daly 2001)
Approach Definition Advantages/Disadvantages
Identifying streams (e.g. themes or categories)
Discussion theme by theme Most popular
Empirical/theoretical
comparison
Themes must be clearly
related to literature
Chronological review Literature divided into time
periods
Suited to describe the
evolution of a phenomenon
Theoretical review Discussion of theoretical literature
followed by exploration of
methodological literature to
conclude about te research
design most suited to study the
topic
Useful when literature is
largely theoretical with little or
no empirical literature
Splitting theoretical and
empirical contributions
Discussing theoretical debate and
empirical findings separately
Tends to be more a
description than a critical
review
32
Conclusions
• Whatever the method, a literature review must be consistent, trustworthy, original and rigorous
• The magic question: “if someone else had started
from the same sources, would he/she have reached
the same outcomes?”
• This does not mean that there is not creativity!
33
References
• Cronin P., Ryan F., Coughlan M. (2008). “Undertaking a literature review: a
step-by-step approach”. British Journal of Nursing, 17(1), 38-43
• Colling J. (2003). Demystifying the clinical nursing research process: the
literature review. Urology Nursery, 23(4), 297–299
• Cooper H. (1998). Synthesizing Research: A Guide for Literature Reviews. Sage
Publications
• Coughlan M, Cronin P, Ryan F (2007) Step-by-step guide to critiquing research.
Part 1: quantitative research. British Journal of Nursing 16(11), 658–63
• Tranfield D.R., Denyer D., Smart P. (2003). Towards a methodology for
developing evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic
review. British Journal of Management, 14, 207–222.
• Tranfield, D., Starkey K. (1998). The Nature, Social Organization and Promotion
of Management Research: Towards Policy, British Journal of Management, 9(4),
341–353.
34