Towards a Methodology for Developing Evidence-Informed Management Knowledge by Means of Systematic Review
TL;DR: In this article, the authors evaluate the process of systematic review used in the medical sciences to produce a reliable knowledge stock and enhanced practice by developing context-sensitive research and highlight the challenges in developing an appropriate methodology.
Abstract: Undertaking a review of the literature is an important part of any research project. The researcher both maps and assesses the relevant intellectual territory in order to specify a research question which will further develop the knowledge hase. However, traditional 'narrative' reviews frequently lack thoroughness, and in many cases are not undertaken as genuine pieces of investigatory science. Consequently they can lack a means for making sense of what the collection of studies is saying. These reviews can he hiased by the researcher and often lack rigour. Furthermore, the use of reviews of the available evidence to provide insights and guidance for intervention into operational needs of practitioners and policymakers has largely been of secondary importance. For practitioners, making sense of a mass of often-contrad ictory evidence has hecome progressively harder. The quality of evidence underpinning decision-making and action has heen questioned, for inadequate or incomplete evidence seriously impedes policy formulation and implementation. In exploring ways in which evidence-informed management reviews might be achieved, the authors evaluate the process of systematic review used in the medical sciences. Over the last fifteen years, medical science has attempted to improve the review process hy synthesizing research in a systematic, transparent, and reproducihie manner with the twin aims of enhancing the knowledge hase and informing policymaking and practice. This paper evaluates the extent to which the process of systematic review can be applied to the management field in order to produce a reliable knowledge stock and enhanced practice by developing context-sensitive research. The paper highlights the challenges in developing an appropriate methodology.
Citations
More filters
TL;DR: In this paper, a cumulative body of knowledge about entrepreneurship orientation has been collected and used in the context of entrepreneurship research, with the focus on entrepreneurship orientation (EO) being one of the few areas in entrepreneurship research where a cumulative knowledge base is available.
Abstract: Entrepreneurial orientation (EO) has received substantial conceptual and empirical attention, representing one of the few areas in entrepreneurship research where a cumulative body of knowledge i ...
2,764 citations
TL;DR: This paper discusses literature review as a methodology for conducting research and offers an overview of different types of reviews, as well as some guidelines to how to both conduct and evaluate a literature review paper.
2,729 citations
TL;DR: In this article, a systematic review of literature published over the past 27 years, synthesize various research perspectives into a comprehensive multi-dimensional framework of organizational innovation - linking leadership, innovation as a process, and innovation as an outcome.
Abstract: This paper consolidates the state of academic research on innovation. Based on a systematic review of literature published over the past 27 years, we synthesize various research perspectives into a comprehensive multi-dimensional framework of organizational innovation - linking leadership, innovation as a process, and innovation as an outcome. We also suggest measures of determinants of organizational innovation and present implications for both research and managerial practice.
2,414 citations
TL;DR: In this article, the authors introduce the bibliometric methods of citation analysis, co-citation analysis, bibliographical coupling, coauthor analysis, and co-word analysis for mapping research specialties.
Abstract: We aim to develop a meaningful single-source reference for management and organization scholars interested in using bibliometric methods for mapping research specialties. Such methods introduce a measure of objectivity into the evaluation of scientific literature and hold the potential to increase rigor and mitigate researcher bias in reviews of scientific literature by aggregating the opinions of multiple scholars working in the field. We introduce the bibliometric methods of citation analysis, co-citation analysis, bibliographical coupling, co-author analysis, and co-word analysis and present a workflow for conducting bibliometric studies with guidelines for researchers. We envision that bibliometric methods will complement meta-analysis and qualitative structured literature reviews as a method for reviewing and evaluating scientific literature. To demonstrate bibliometric methods, we performed a citation and co-citation analysis to map the intellectual structure of the Organizational Research Methods j...
1,916 citations
TL;DR: A comprehensive review on Industry 4.0 is conducted and presents an overview of the content, scope, and findings by examining the existing literatures in all of the databases within the Web of Science.
1,906 citations
References
More filters
Book•
01 Jan 1988
TL;DR: In this paper, the idea of a meta-ethnography was introduced and a Meta-Ethnographic Approach was proposed to construct META-ETHNOGRAPHIES Reciprocal Translations as Synthesis this paper.
Abstract: PART ONE: INTRODUCTION The Idea of a Meta-Ethnography A Meta-Ethnographic Approach PART TWO: CONSTRUCTING META-ETHNOGRAPHIES Reciprocal Translations as Synthesis Refutational Synthesis Lines-of-Argument Synthesis Inscribing Meta-Ethnographies
2,454 citations
TL;DR: Patients' inquiries about breast cancer screening and exercise treatment for claudication highlight the need for a concise, current, rigorous synthesis of the best available evidence on each of these topics: in brief, a systematic review.
Abstract: Systematic reviews can help practitioners keep abreast of the medical literature by summarizing large bodies of evidence and helping to explain differences among studies on the same question. A systematic review involves the application of scientific strategies, in ways that limit bias, to the assembly, critical appraisal, and synthesis of all relevant studies that address a specific clinical question. A meta-analysis is a type of systematic review that uses statistical methods to combine and summarize the results of several primary studies. Because the review process itself (like any other type of research) is subject to bias, a useful review requires clear reporting of information obtained using rigorous methods. Used increasingly to inform medical decision making, plan future research agendas, and establish clinical policy, systematic reviews may strengthen the link between best research evidence and optimal health care.
1,853 citations
Book•
01 Jan 1998
TL;DR: The Literature Review in Research Reviewing and the Research Imagination Classifying and Reading Research Argumentation Analysis Organizing and Expressing Ideas Mapping and Analyzing Ideas Writing the Review as mentioned in this paper
Abstract: The Literature Review in Research Reviewing and the Research Imagination Classifying and Reading Research Argumentation Analysis Organizing and Expressing Ideas Mapping and Analyzing Ideas Writing the Review
1,612 citations
TL;DR: Systematic literature reviews establish whether scientific findings are consistent and can be generalised across populations, settings, and treatment variations, or whether findings vary significantly by particular subsets.
Abstract: Systematic literature reviews including meta-analyses are invaluable scientific activities. The rationale for such reviews is well established. Health care providers, researchers, and policy makers are inundated with unmanageable amounts of information; they need systematic reviews to efficiently integrate existing information and provide data for rational decision making. Systematic reviews establish whether scientific findings are consistent and can be generalised across populations, settings, and treatment variations, or whether findings vary significantly by particular subsets. Meta-analyses in particular can increase power and precision of estimates of treatment effects and exposure risks. Finally explicit methods used in systematic reviews limit bias and, hopefully, will improve reliability and accuracy of conclusions.
Systematic literature review is a fundamental scientific activity. Its rationale is grounded firmly in several premises. Firstly, large quantities of information must be reduced into palatable pieces for digestion. Over two million articles are published annually in the biomedical literature in over 20 000 journals1 - literally a small mountain of information. For example, about 4400 pages were devoted to approximately 1100 articles in the BMJ and New England Journal of Medicine, combined, in 1992. In a stack, two million such articles would rise 500 m. Clearly, systematic literature review is needed to refine these unmanageable amounts of information. Through critical exploration, evaluation, and synthesis the systematic review separates the insignificant, unsound, or redundant deadwood in the medical literature from the salient and critical studies that are worthy of reflection.2
Secondly, various decision makers need to integrate the critical pieces of available biomedical information. Systematic reviews are used by more specialised integrators, such as economic and decision analysts, to estimate the variables and outcomes that are included in their evaluations. Both systematic and more specialised integrations are used by clinicians to keep abreast of the primary literature in a given field …
1,432 citations
TL;DR: In this article, the authors argue that management theory stands a better chance of being adopted for instrumental use if the theory is based on the paradigm of the "design sciences" like medicine or engineering, and they discuss the potential of solving its utility problem by combining both types of research.
Abstract: Academic management theory has a serious utilization problem. This article argues that it stands a better chance of being adopted for instrumental use if the theory is based on the paradigm of the “design sciences”, like medicine or engineering. Most academic management research is based on the paradigm of the “explanatory sciences”, like physics. The mission of these sciences is to describe, explain and predict, while the core mission of the design sciences is to develop “tested and grounded technological rules”. The paradigm of the design sciences is applied to management research and I discuss the potential of solving its utility problem by combining both types of research.
1,382 citations