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
TL;DR: In this article, the authors explain why firms find it so difficult to translate knowledge into practice and offer a set of guidelines that address the sources of this problem, and suggest that the challenge for managers is to figure out how to do what they know needs to be done.
Abstract: Why, in light of all the substantial resources firms devote to improving their performance, do so few management practices actually change? In fact, knowledge management at many companies often makes the "knowing-doing" gap worse. This article explains why firms find it so difficult to translate knowledge into practice and offers a set of guidelines that address the sources of this problem. Knowing what to do is not enough; the challenge for managers is to figure out how to do what they know needs to be done.
437 citations
TL;DR: At the bedside or in the office, physicians should have instantaneous, up-to-date assistance from an affordable, universally available database of systematic reviews of the best evidence from clinical trials.
Abstract: WHERE SHOULD a physician look to find accurate, up-to-date information about the effectiveness of a variety of clinical interventions? At the bedside or in the office, physicians should have instantaneous, up-to-date assistance from an affordable, universally available database of systematic reviews of the best evidence from clinical trials. Unfortunately, the physician who tries to seek the best evidence is often thwarted. Textbooks and reviews are often unreliable and years out of date. 1 The searcher may find the MEDLINE database, surely one of the greatest achievements of US medicine, daunting and incomplete. Although well over 1 million clinical trials have been conducted, hundreds of thousands remain See also pp 1942 and 1962. unpublished or are hard to find and may be in various languages. In the unlikely event that the physician finds all the relevant trials of a treatment, these are rarely accompanied by any comprehensive systematic review attempting to
434 citations
TL;DR: A speech by Donald C. Hambrick, president of the Academy of Management, delivered at the Columbia University, New York in 1993 is presented.
Abstract: The article presents a speech by Donald C. Hambrick, president of the Academy of Management, delivered at the Columbia University, New York in 1993. Topics include accomplishments of the Academy of Management, initiatives that must be considered by the Board of Governors, and the role of the Academy of Management in the field of business and management.
432 citations
TL;DR: This article focuses on the relation between systematic reviews and practice guidelines: how the development of guidelines can benefit from systematic reviews, and how systematic reviews can be used to help implement guidelines.
Abstract: Clinical practice guidelines have been developed to improve the process and outcomes of health care and to optimize resource utilization. By addressing such issues as prevention, diagnosis, and treatment, they can aid in health care decision making at many levels. Several other decision aids are cast in the guideline lexicon, regardless of their focus, formulation, or format; this can foster misunderstanding of the term "guideline." Whether created or adapted locally or nationally, most guidelines are an amalgam of clinical experience, expert opinion, and research evidence. Approaches to practice guideline development vary widely. Given the resources required to identify all relevant primary studies, many guidelines rely on systematic reviews that were either previously published or created de novo by guideline developers. Systematic reviews can aid in guideline development because they involve searching for, selecting, critically appraising, and summarizing the results of primary research. The more rigorous the review methods used and the higher the quality of the primary research that is synthesized, the more evidence-based the practice guideline is likely to be. Summaries of relevant research incorporated into guideline documents can help to keep practitioners up to date with the literature. Systematic reviews have also been published on the dissemination and implementation strategies most likely to change clinician behavior and improve patient outcomes. These can be useful in more effectively translating research evidence into practice.
405 citations
TL;DR: In this article, the authors present a simple 2 × 2 model along the dimensions of relevance and rigour, with the four cells occupied by Popularist, Pragmatic, Pedantic, and Puerile Science, respectively.
Abstract: There is current concern that the researcher, or academic, and the practitioner wings of our discipline are moving further apart. This divergence is likely to result in irrelevant theory and in untheorized and invalid practice. Such outcomes will damage our reputation and ultimately result in our fragmentation. We present a simple 2 × 2 model along the dimensions of relevance and rigour, with the four cells occupied by Popularist, Pragmatic, Pedantic, and Puerile Science, respectively. We argue that there has been a drift away from Pragmatic Science, high in both relevance and rigour, towards Pedantic and Popularist Science, and through them to Puerile Science. We support this argument by longitudinal analyses of the authorship of academic journal articles and then explain this drift in terms of our stakeholders. Powerful academics are the most immediate stakeholders for researchers, and they exercise their power in such a way as to increase the drift towards Pedantic Science. Organizational clients are the most powerful stakeholders for practitioners, and in their effort to address their urgent issues, they push practitioners towards Popularist Science. In the light of this analysis, we argue that we need to engage in political activity in order to reduce or redirect the influence of the key stakeholders. This can be done either directly, through our relationship with them, or indirectly, through others who influence them. Only by political action can the centrifugal forces away from Pragmatic Science be countered and a centripetal direction be established. Finally, we explore the implications of our analysis for the future development of members of our own profession.
392 citations