literature review in business research pdf

Six tips for your (systematic) literature review in business and management research

• Published: 03 May 2018
• Volume 68 , pages 103–106, ( 2018 )

Cite this article

• Christian Fisch 1 , 2 &
• Joern Block 1 , 2  

63k Accesses

233 Citations

7 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

With the start of our editorial term, we decided to extend Management Review Quarterly’s (MRQ’s) scope beyond (systematic) literature reviews Footnote 1 to include also bibliographic studies, meta-analyses, and replication studies. Nevertheless, literature reviews have been and will continue to be a core element of MRQ. Literature reviews have given the journal a unique identity and are crucial in the pursuit of the journal’s aim, which is to summarize, categorize, and challenge existing knowledge in business and management research. In this editorial, we outline six tips that help (MRQ) authors to improve their literature review.

A literature review is an essential component of almost any research project. It serves as the foundation for advancing knowledge, facilitates theory development, closes mature research areas, and uncovers novel research areas (Webster and Watson 2002 ). Frank and Hatak ( 2014 ) refer to a literature review as a “knowledge map”, which analyzes and synthesizes prior literature. Because literature reviews are so prevalent, there exist already several comprehensive resources that guide authors through the steps necessary to conduct a literature review (e.g., Aguinis et al. 2018 ; Booth et al. 2016 ; Frank and Hatak 2014 ; Tranfield et al. 2003 ; Webster and Watson 2002 ).

Surprisingly, there is a still considerable variance in the understanding of what a literature review is and, consequently, in the quality of systematic literature reviews. Often, researchers seem unfamiliar with the process, structure, and presentation of systematic literature reviews and produce merely descriptive, annotated bibliographies of loosely connected research, which makes it unnecessary complex and difficult for the readers to follow the literature review. The literature review therefore does not achieve its main goal of summarizing and categorizing knowledge.

There is also the misconception that literature reviews are less rigorous or easier to write than empirical articles. However, conducting a literature review of high quality requires an in-depth understanding of the necessary processes and skills and is by no means a trivial endeavor. It also requires some experience in the respective field, as the interpretation of the results of the studies included in the literature review is subjective and by no means trivial.

Here, we outline six suggestions that we think are crucial for every literature review:

Motivate the topic and state the research question The abstract and introduction are crucial elements of any research article. Usually, the reader decides after looking at the abstract and/or introduction whether he will read the entire article or not. Additionally, a literature review needs a crisp and concise motivation. It is important to not only motivate why a topic warrants investigation but also why the authors choose to approach the topic in the form of a (systematic) literature review. Perhaps the most important element of an introduction is the research question that guides the remainder of the literature review. Therefore, we encourage authors to carefully develop and clearly state their research question(s) in the introductory section.

Identify the relevant literature in a systematic way A distinguishing feature of a systematic literature review is that the review process should be transparent and reproducible. The authors need to clearly outline their search strategy for identifying relevant literature in a systematic way to establish as much transparency as possible. This involves a description of the databases where the literature search was conducted, a definition of the search terms and keywords used to identify literature, and a careful description of the practical (e.g., language, availability) and methodological (e.g., time frame, article type) screening and exclusion criteria used. Notice that the application of screening criteria (e.g., only focusing on highly ranked journals) should be well-justified, as screening criteria can have crucial implications for the results and their generalizability.

Choose the right balance between breadth and depth When conducting a systematic literature review, authors often face the dilemma of choosing between breadth and depth when identifying and describing prior studies. In general, a good systematic literature review is characterized by the right balance between breadth and depth by including all relevant studies but only describing important studies in more detail in a structured way. This dilemma is often difficult to solve, as a literature review should be coherent and cover a research field as a whole, but it should not be an endless, overly descriptive summary of all studies that the authors identified. To solve this dilemma to some extent, authors should make use of tables and figures to convey the most important concepts and information in an efficient fashion. For example, figures can be used to illustrate the development of the number of studies over time and can also illustrate which topics have attracted the most research. Of course, tables and figures should be used in a sensible fashion and should never present the main focus of the literature review. The breadth and depth of a literature review also depend on the maturity of the research field. A literature review on a mature topic requires that the authors analyze and synthesize a large body of literature, in comparison to a review on a more novel field where only few studies exist. The authors of this editorial were once challenged to summarize the literature on the intersection of entrepreneurship and innovation. At first, this seemed to be an impossible task. However, after having developed a more concise research question (see suggestion 1), developing clear inclusion and exclusion criteria (see suggestion 2), focusing on breadth instead of depth (see suggestion 3) and on concepts rather than studies (see suggestion 4), the task became doable. The whole process took many iterations and was very work-intensive, but we managed to deliver a literature review at the intersection of innovation and entrepreneurship or vice versa (see Block et al. 2017 ).

Focus on concepts, not studies Authors need to decide how to summarize and categorize the literature identified. While it is possible to summarize literature in a chronological or even alphabetical order, we believe that literature reviews should be concept-centric. This involves a careful identification and evaluation of the underlying concepts used in the review, which then guide the analysis conducted. Focusing on concepts instead of studies helps authors to identify the research debates they aim to contribute to and helps to ensure a better structure throughout the manuscript. Hence, a systematic literature review needs to be based on sound logical and conceptual reasoning. This can (but need not) lead to a new conceptual framework with propositions. In this sense, writing a systematic literature review very much resembles the writing of a conceptual theory paper.

Derive meaningful conclusions Closely connected to the previous point, we want to reiterate that a systematic literature review must go beyond a mere descriptive summary of prior literature. While it is important to provide a descriptive overview on the topics and studies included, it is essential to go one step further and to synthesize and interpret this knowledge. The literature review should derive meaningful conclusions and needs to answer the question: What do we learn from this summary? This includes carefully evaluating and deriving implications, pointing out gaps in the literature, and outlining avenues for future research.

Follow a coherent article structure A coherent structure is a crucial element of any research article. The structure of a systematic literature review resembles the structure of an empirical article. The introduction motivates the topic and describes the contributions of the literature review. The next section describes the systematic review process and the key concepts used. After that, the crucial part is the synthesis and interpretation of the literature review’s findings. This section can but need not lead to the derivation of propositions or a conceptual model (see suggestion 4 above). The final section of a literature review provides a conclusion and discussion with the boundaries of the review and the future research areas. The order of the sections is not static and can vary depending on the review’s topic. For example, one can also put suggestions for future research directly into the body of the article where the main findings from the literature review are described and/or discussed. However, a coherent structure is an absolute necessity for a systematic literature review.

In addition to incorporating these six suggestions, we encourage authors interested in submitting a systematic literature review to MRQ to carefully read the references provided in this article.

Note that the term “systematic literature review” is not clearly defined. In MRQ’s understanding, it refers to all literature reviews that follow a systematic, transparent, and reproducible process for identifying academic literature about a clearly defined topic or research question.

Aguinis H, Ramani RS, Alabduljader N (2018) What you see is what you get? Enhancing methodological transparency in management research. Acad Manag Ann 12(1):83–110

Article   Google Scholar  

Block J, Fisch C, van Praag M (2017) The Schumpeterian entrepreneur: a review of the empirical evidence on the antecedents, behavior, and consequences on innovative entrepreneurship. Ind Innov 24(1):61–95

Booth A, Sutton A, Papaioannou D (2016) Systematic approaches to a successful literature review. Sage, Thousand Oaks

Google Scholar  

Frank H, Hatak I (2014) Doing a research literature review. In: Fayolle A, Wright M (eds) How to get published in the best entrepreneurship journals. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 94–117

Tranfield D, Denyer D, Smart P (2003) Towards a methodology for developing evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. Br J Manag 14(3):207–222

Webster J, Watson RT (2002) Analyzing the past to prepare for the future: writing a literature review. MIS Q 26(2):xiii–xxiii

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank Andreas Kuckertz (University of Hohenheim) and Alexandra Moritz (Trier University) for their valuable comments that greatly improved the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Trier University, Trier, Germany

Christian Fisch & Joern Block

Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christian Fisch .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Fisch, C., Block, J. Six tips for your (systematic) literature review in business and management research. Manag Rev Q 68 , 103–106 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11301-018-0142-x

Download citation

Published : 03 May 2018

Issue Date : April 2018

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11301-018-0142-x

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

• Teesside University Student & Library Services
• Subject LibGuides

Business Research Methods

• Literature Review
• Studying for your Project
• Project Outline
• Project Management
• Report Writing
• How to Reference
• Reading Lists Online

What is a literature review

“A literature review is a description of the literature relevant to a particular field or topic. It gives an overview of what has been said, who the key writers are, what are the prevailing theories and hypotheses, what questions are being asked, and what methods and methodologies are appropriate and useful" (Emerald Insight).

A literature review  is not  just a summary of everything you have read on the topic.  It is a critical analysis of the existing research relevant to your topic, and you should show how the literature relates to your topic and identify any gaps in the area of research. Our Learning Hub has lots of useful guidance for carrying out a  Literature Review .

How is it different?

It's on a much larger scale from your research for previous modules.

You may need to devise new ways of searching and managing your results.

Think about:

• Using RefWorks to manage your references
• Setting up alerts to retrieve new results for your searches

How to carry out a review

• Devise a search strategy
• Search systematically
• Read critically – i.e. deconstruct the material
• Put it all back together – reconstruct

1. Devise a search strategy

Think about the sort of research that would help your project.

1. What subject areas does you topic fall into?

2. What possible sources could you use? Think broadly, for example:

• Company reports
• Industry profiles
• Market research
• Financial reports
• Newspaper articles
• Journal articles

3. What don't you want?  What are the limits? For example, geographical restrictions or time periods.

2. Search systematically

• Plan your search first, thinking about your keywords
• Use the pages on this LibGuide to identify quality resources
• Use the tutorials and advice on those pages to improve your searches
• Use the  Inter Library Loans service  to borrow books or to obtain copies of papers which aren't in the library
• Speak to the Business Librarians for help with your searches, or to recommend new items for library stock
• Look at the programme of  Succeed @ Tees workshops , and attend any which are relevant.

3. Read critically - i.e. deconstruct your results

Read critically, argument: .

• What is the main argument?
• Is the main argument clear and logical?
• What is the evidence?
• Is the evidence valid?
• Does the evidence support the conclusions?

4. Put it all back together – reconstruct

• Group your topic areas – develop themes
• Briefly summarise key findings

- See Phrasebank for suggestions of how to phrase your sentences.

• Use the academic papers as examples of the style of academic writing as well as for their content
• Check your referencing

Succeed@Tees Workshops: Writing a Literature Review

The following workshop will help you to develop your skills in writing a literature review :

Writing a literature review

• << Previous: Project Outline
• Next: Project Management >>
• Last Updated: Apr 23, 2024 11:08 AM
• URL: https://libguides.tees.ac.uk/business_research

Literature Review Example/Sample

Detailed Walkthrough + Free Literature Review Template

If you’re working on a dissertation or thesis and are looking for an example of a strong literature review chapter , you’ve come to the right place.

In this video, we walk you through an A-grade literature review from a dissertation that earned full distinction . We start off by discussing the five core sections of a literature review chapter by unpacking our free literature review template . This includes:

• The literature review opening/ introduction section
• The theoretical framework (or foundation of theory)
• The empirical research
• The research gap
• The closing section

We then progress to the sample literature review (from an A-grade Master’s-level dissertation) to show how these concepts are applied in the literature review chapter. You can access the free resources mentioned in this video below.

FAQ: Literature Review Example

Literature review example: frequently asked questions, is the sample literature review real.

Yes. The literature review example is an extract from a Master’s-level dissertation for an MBA program. It has not been edited in any way.

Can I replicate this literature review for my dissertation?

As we discuss in the video, every literature review will be slightly different, depending on the university’s unique requirements, as well as the nature of the research itself. Therefore, you’ll need to tailor your literature review to suit your specific context.

You can learn more about the basics of writing a literature review here .

Where can I find more examples of literature reviews?

The best place to find more examples of literature review chapters would be within dissertation/thesis databases. These databases include dissertations, theses and research projects that have successfully passed the assessment criteria for the respective university, meaning that you have at least some sort of quality assurance. 

The Open Access Thesis Database (OATD) is a good starting point. 

How do I get the literature review template?

You can access our free literature review chapter template here .

Is the template really free?

Yes. There is no cost for the template and you are free to use it as you wish. 

Psst… there’s more!

This post is an extract from our bestselling short course, Literature Review Bootcamp . If you want to work smart, you don't want to miss this .

You Might Also Like:

What will it take for you to guide me in my Ph.D research work?

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

• Print Friendly

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

Literature Review in Business Research

Many young researchers expect their research report to be accepted by evaluators, failing to understand the importance of literature review which is the foundation and integral to the research one undertakes. The hawkish eyes of the evaluators first fall on the literature review which is Achilles’ heel of many researchers. Worst of all, researchers of some ilk are completely clueless of what constitutes research. Sadly, some researchers still think that literature review is just a formality; some of them think that doing a survey is research; and some others think that writing a voluminous book is research. This essay is an attempt to wean the researchers away from erroneous ways and their misconceptions about research and put them on the right track. This essay attempts to first explain critical terms - research, relationships and theories -whose understanding is essential to embarking on a meaningful research. It will be followed by a discussion on the important dimensions of business research - relationships among variables, features of a phenomenon, and different forms of a phenomenon.

Related Papers

Kambidima Wotela

Overall, examiner’s reports show that a rich research report is one that discusses or rather interprets its empirical findings effectively. This implies that a research should go beyond presenting new data and information but rather this data and information should be interpreted. However, the ‘discussion of research results or findings’ component is a function of the ‘literature review’ component as well as ‘the presentation of research results or findings’ component. Technically, the main outcome or objective of the ‘literature review’ component is a conceptual framework—that is, a well thought-out outline of how a research should proceed after understanding the research problem, identifying the knowledge gap, and developing a framework for interpreting the research findings. Unfortunately, the interrogation of the literature review component is the most unstructured process in a research undertaking and, therefore, leaves students to wonder in the wildness. Those that finally get...

sciepub.com SciEP

This paper deals with the conceptuality of the Business research methodology e.g. the meaning of the research, objectives, motivation and types of research. The basic approaches to research, research methods versus methodology, research process, sorts of research i.e formulation of the research problem, extensive literature survey, development of working hypotheses, preparing the research design, execution of the project, analysis of the data, hypothesis-testing, generalizations and interpretations and preparation of the report have also been described along with the criteria of good research and problems, issues experienced encountered by Iranian researchers.

Dr. Nikolaos Basias

There is evidence that making an effective literature review is one of the most important factors for research success and many issues related to this area remain unexplored. Especially in cross-disciplinary research areas such: (a) Business Development, (b) Strategic Management and (c) Technology the absence of a methodological framework that explains step by step the literature review process, remains an important barrier for researchers that requires further study and deeper investigation. The analysis indicates that several practices and techniques related to the literature review process are not similar among researchers and that some approaches are relevant for any research area and others depend on the type and characteristics of the specific areas. As a consequence, the aim of this paper is to identify and analyze key supporting steps in the literature review process in Business Development, Strategic Management and Technology. In doing so, it expends the body of knowledge in this area and adds a new dimension to existing literature review methods and techniques.

Marco Antonio Perez

Research Methods for Business Students

Mark N K Saunders , Alexandra Bristow

This is the proof copy of the Preface, Contents pages and Chapter 4 from the 9th edition, published in March 2023. It is uploaded with full permission from Pearson. The chapter introduces the research onion, defines ontology, epistemology and axiology, and explain their relevance to business research; explains the main research paradigms that are significant for business research; explains the relevance for business research of philosophical positions of positivism, critical realism, interpretivism, postmodernism and pragmatism; helps you reflect on and articulate your own philosophical position in relation to your research; Discusses and explains deductive, inductive, and abductive approaches to theory development. It also contains a tool developed by Alexandra Bristow and Mark Saunders called 'HARP' that will help you diagnose your own research philosophy.

Management Decision

Jasmina Berbegal-Mirabent

About this book It is now fourteen years since we collaborated in the writing of our first research methods book. In 2009 the fifth edition was published (Saunders et al., 2009). The success of that book suggests that research methods is a popular subject with business and management students. This may be so. But we think that it has more to do with the fact research methods is a complex areaone where it is easy to do things, but much less easy to do things right. When we planned the first book we had one overall mission in mind. That was to write a book in a way that came as near as possible to the way in which we taught our students. By this we mean that we wanted to be clear and straightforward, and explain things in a way that lost none of the complexity, or academic rigour of the subject. Over the years this mission has not altered. We feel just as passionate about clear communication as we did back in 1997. However, things in the world of business and management education have...

Aaron Buchko

We suggest that organizational and managerial research tends to suffer from incremental approaches that marginalize the result. We review the history and nature of organizational research as a means of pointing out the limitations of various approached to the issue of developing high quality research that can significantly impact research and practice. We note that research that tends to affect practice comes from qualitative studies that lack rigor, but frequently provide meaningful insights. We then examine one technique, called Spectrum analsysis, as a means of improving the assessment of organizational information and as a basis for improving the quality of future qualitative research efforts. This is demonstrated by applying the Spectrum analysis to the information from the book Built to Last as a way of providing an example of the utility of such approaches to furthering knowledge of organizational and managerial experience.

Dr Jeff McCarthy

This reflective thought paper considers approaches to doing business research that are discussed in the extant literature. The purpose is to stimulate debate by reflecting on the process of developing a research methodology, drawing on evidence from my own experiences of conducting research into social media in football. The paper questions the ‘top-down’ linear approach encouraged by research methods texts and usually evident in the presentation of research (Theses, Journals, and Conferences). It is suggested that the developing of a research methodology can be ‘bottom-up’ and iterative, thus posing challenges for the researcher to present such work in the more common style of a post-hoc rationalisation. In doing so, the paper makes a contribution to business research methodology and invites fellow researchers to share their views and experiences, for the benefit of early career researchers. Keywords: Business research, method, methodology, interview.

Journal of Business Research

Maggie Geuens

The Global Management Series

Kevin D O'Gorman

After many years of working with undergraduate, postgraduate and research students we recognise only too well the struggles that they often experience wrestling with the somewhat strange and seemingly obtuse language used to describe research philosophy. We once experienced similar difficulties and empathise with the confusion and lack of confidence that flows from being unclear whether you have really understood terms such as methodology, ontology or epistemology. We set out to produce a text that dealt with two problems. The first was to provide something that guides novice researchers through the whole process from identifying a topic to the writing up of findings via engagement with the literature and a brief overview of both qualitative and quantitative techniques. The second problem we wanted to tackle related to what we often refer to as ‘the ologies’. Here we wanted to offer a structured approach to familiarising yourself with the terminology and to demonstrate how a nested set of descriptions builds towards a coherent, comprehensive and consistent articulation of your research paradigm. We are indebted to our colleagues for their help in delivering on the first of these two problems in the first edition of the book. This was achieved at a pace which seemed frankly ridiculous but which produced a remarkably coherent guide for novice researchers. Despite positive feedback on many aspects of the first edition from both students and colleagues, we were however convinced that we could improve in relation to ‘the ologies’. For this reason, the second edition features some relatively minor changes to many chapters and a complete rewrite of our account of research philosophy. Central to the revised text is the methods map (see Chapter 4), which sets out a logical process for researchers to articulate their position in relation to five key aspects of their research philosophy. We have road tested this approach with many colleagues and students to ensure that it is clear and concise. In addition, we have developed a free app to accompany the book and this enables novice researcher to quickly develop a comprehensive justification of their particular research design in an interactive way. We would acknowledge that the methods map makes some simplifications and would suggest that for all but the most sophisticated of purposes, this is entirely appropriate. Indeed, if you are well enough versed in the philosophical nuances of knowledge explored in the method map then you are probably not part of our intended audience since you already possess the skills, confidence and capacity to articulate and defend the underpinning philosophical assumptions of your research. For everyone else, we hope that the second edition of Research Methods for Business and Management helps demystify the dreaded ‘ologies’.

RELATED PAPERS

Hartmut Fischer

Educar em Revista

enrique correal

bernhard freyer

Studi Francesi

margherita amatulli

Value in Health

Hypoxia (Auckland, N.Z.)

Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications

Mariela Araujo

Jurnal Tata Kota dan Daerah

Dwi Mutiara Putri

International Journal of Public Health

Randah R Hamadeh

International Conference on Aerospace Sciences and Aviation Technology

ahmed hamad

Durga N Kafle

Journal of Insect Physiology

amer tawfik

Journal of the American Academy of Physician Assistants

Alison Essary

Lukman Hakim

Journal of Computer and Education Research

Sztuka Ameryki Łacińskiej

Emma Patricia Victorio Cánovas

Lidia Sviridenco

Textile Textures: multithreaded narratives

Jessica Hemmings

Issamu Muraoka

Annette Dortmund

ChemBioChem

Kim findlay

Head &amp; Neck

David Lesnik

Handbook of Pragmatics Highlights

Jef Verschueren

Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy

Lily Llorens

RELATED TOPICS

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

• SUGGESTED TOPICS
• The Magazine
• Newsletters
• Managing Yourself
• Managing Teams
• Work-life Balance
• The Big Idea
• Data & Visuals
• Reading Lists
• Case Selections
• HBR Learning
• Topic Feeds
• Account Settings
• Email Preferences

Transformations That Work

• Michael Mankins
• Patrick Litre

More than a third of large organizations have some type of transformation program underway at any given time, and many launch one major change initiative after another. Though they kick off with a lot of fanfare, most of these efforts fail to deliver. Only 12% produce lasting results, and that figure hasn’t budged in the past two decades, despite everything we’ve learned over the years about how to lead change.

Clearly, businesses need a new model for transformation. In this article the authors present one based on research with dozens of leading companies that have defied the odds, such as Ford, Dell, Amgen, T-Mobile, Adobe, and Virgin Australia. The successful programs, the authors found, employed six critical practices: treating transformation as a continuous process; building it into the company’s operating rhythm; explicitly managing organizational energy; using aspirations, not benchmarks, to set goals; driving change from the middle of the organization out; and tapping significant external capital to fund the effort from the start.

Lessons from companies that are defying the odds

Idea in Brief

The problem.

Although companies frequently engage in transformation initiatives, few are actually transformative. Research indicates that only 12% of major change programs produce lasting results.

Why It Happens

Leaders are increasingly content with incremental improvements. As a result, they experience fewer outright failures but equally fewer real transformations.

The Solution

To deliver, change programs must treat transformation as a continuous process, build it into the company’s operating rhythm, explicitly manage organizational energy, state aspirations rather than set targets, drive change from the middle out, and be funded by serious capital investments.

Nearly every major corporation has embarked on some sort of transformation in recent years. By our estimates, at any given time more than a third of large organizations have a transformation program underway. When asked, roughly 50% of CEOs we’ve interviewed report that their company has undertaken two or more major change efforts within the past five years, with nearly 20% reporting three or more.

• Michael Mankins is a leader in Bain’s Organization and Strategy practices and is a partner based in Austin, Texas. He is a coauthor of Time, Talent, Energy: Overcome Organizational Drag and Unleash Your Team’s Productive Power (Harvard Business Review Press, 2017).
• PL Patrick Litre leads Bain’s Global Transformation and Change practice and is a partner based in Atlanta.

Partner Center