Writing the literature review for empirical papers

Authors Objective Findings Research Question Further Research Limitations Methodology Practical Implications Abbariki et al. (2017) The paper analyses whether tacit knowledge was being shared through collective learning routines at two sites where employees were undertaking knowledge-intensive work. Superiors can overlook the presence of embedded knowledge work in tasks environments that are largely static, procedure driven and independent.In such environments, employees need to be grated opportunities to meet together to share tacit knowledge that cannot be accommodated by archiven-based knowledge management platforms. How can employees share tacit knowledge if they are performing tasks independently, and if their superiors discourage face-to-face interactions when they are performing tasks in real time? Enhance confirm ability by examining sites that are similar to Cases, with employees operating within a largely static, solo work and procedure-driven task environment Although the authors sought to obtain a close-up picture of how tacit knowledge was being shared at Case A, the very nature of such knowledge rendered it difficult for employees to provide explanations to an outside interviewer 34 semi structured interviews about task environment and collective learning activities of informants at various hierarchical levelsCase A: 3 directors/9 senior managers/16 operational managersCase B: 1 director, 2 senior managers and 2 operational managers a) It is important for managers to recognize that even procedure-governed tasks require tacit knowledgeb) Managers should encourage and facilitate the sharing of tacit knowledge among employeesc) Computer-based knowledge sharing platforms cannot substitute for face-to-face knowledge sharing forums, since they not help employees to articulate their own tacit knowledge or to decode the tacit knowledge of othersd) If managers prefer to restrict opportunities for employees to engage in ad hoc meetings while they are performing their tasks, they may schedule periodic “off-line” face to face forums Torraco (2005) This article discusses how to organize and write an integrative literature review and cites examples of published integrative literature reviews that illustrate how this type of research has made substantive contributions to the knowledge base of human resource development. It Categorizes Four Forms of Synthesis from Integrative Literature Reviews: a) Research agenda b) Taxonomy c) Alternative models or conceptual frameworks d) Meta-theory.A Checklist for Writing an Integrative Literature Review: a) Before Writing an Integrative Literature Review b) Organizing an Integrative Literature Review c) Writing an Integrative Literature Review Not Available Not Available The paper is focused in Human Resources and could be expanded for others areas The paper discusses 31 papers to provide its findings. This article offers guidelines for writing integrative literature reviews to support authors to do this task. Kitchenham et al. (2009) This study assesses the impact of systematic literature reviews (SLRs), which are the recommended evidence-based software engineering method for aggregating evidence. The authors define evidence as a synthesis of best quality scientific studies on a specific topic or research question, which the main method of synthesis is a systematic literature review (SLR) Not available The authors indicate to extend this study by under- taking a broader automated search for other SLRs over the same time period. They also plan to repeat this study at the end of 2009 to track the progress of SLRs and evidence-based software engineering. This study suffers from a number of limitations; in particular, the authors have restricted themselves to a manual search of international journals and conferences. This study has been undertaken as a systematic literature review based on the original guidelines as proposed by Kitchenham et al. (2009). In this case the goal of the review is to assess systematic literature reviews (which are referred to as secondary studies), so this study is categorized as a tertiary literature review. The authors exampled issues to guide how to do Research Questions (RQ), Limitations and Quality Assessment in their paper, which helps other authors: RQ1. How much SLR activity has there been since 2004? RQ2. What research topics are being addressed? RQ3. Who is leading SLR research? RQ4. What are the limitations of current research?With respect to limitations of SLRs (RQ4) the authors considered issues: RQ4.1. Were the research topics limited? RQ4.2. Is there evidence that the use of SLRs is limited due to lack of primary studies? RQ4.3. Is the quality of SLRs appropriate, if not, is it improving? RQ4.4. Are SLRs contributing to practice by defining practice guidelines?The Quality Assessment criteria are based on four quality assessment (QA) questions:QA1. Are the review’s inclusion and exclusion criteria described and appropriate?QA2. Is the literature search likely to have covered all relevant studies?QA3. Did the reviewers assess the quality/validity of the included studies?QA4. Were the basic data/studies adequately described?

Pros	Cons
Collection from a broad range of sources	Could limit creativity and intuition
Aids interdisciplinary as it highlights cross disciplinary themes	Could overlook important “grey literature” e.g. reports
Increase transparency of review	Restricted to the accessibility of sources
Increases replicability of the review	Keyword search strings need to be identifiable
Being “systematic” offers a sense of rigor	Relies on databases that support “keyword” search
Aids the process of synthesis through the increased scope possible	Relies on the quality of abstract (often limited to 100 words)

Technique		Meta-analysis (MA)	Critical Analysis (CA)	Systematic Review (SR)
		It uses statistical techniques to combine and summarize results of multiple studies; they may or may not be contained within a systematic review	It is a “[...] critical evaluation of the literature according to argument, logic and/or epistemological tradition of the review subject [...]” (Petticrew & Roberts, 2006Petticrew, M., & Roberts, H. (2006). Systematic reviews in the social sciences: a practical guide. Malden MA: Blackwell., p. 19)	It is a “[...] review that strives to comprehensively identify, appraise and synthesize all relevant studies on a given topic [...]” (Petticrew & Roberts, 2006Petticrew, M., & Roberts, H. (2006). Systematic reviews in the social sciences: a practical guide. Malden MA: Blackwell., p. 19)
Source	Author Title	Serenko & Bontis (2004)Serenko, A., & Bontis, N. (2004). Meta-review of knowledge management and intellectual capital literature: citation impact and research productivity ranking. Knowledge and Process Management, 11(3), 185-198. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/kpm.203. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/kpm.203... Meta review of knowledge management and intellectual capital literature: Citation impact and research productivity rankings	Nonaka & Peltokorpi (2006)Nonaka, I., & Peltokorpi, V. (2006). Objectivity and subjectivity in knowledge management: a review of 20 top articles. Knowledge and Process Management, 13(2), 73-82. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/kpm.251. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/kpm.251... Objectivity and subjectivity in knowledge management: a review of 20 top articles	Perkmann et al. (2013)Perkmann, M., Tartari, V., McKelvey, M., Autioa, E., Broströmc, A., D’Este, P., Finif, R., Geuna, A., Grimaldif, R., Hughes, A., Krabel, S., Kitsong, M., Llerenai, P., Lissoni, F., Salter, A., & Sobrerof, M. (2013). Academic engagement and commercialisation: a review of the literature on university–industry relations. Research Policy, 42(2), 423-442. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2012.09.007. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2012.... Academic engagement and commercialization: A review of the literature on university–industry relations.
	Objective	The paper conducts a meta-review analysis of knowledge management and intellectual capital literatures	The paper classifies the KM publications relating subjectivity–objectivity.	The paper proposes a theoretical framework about academic scientists relationship in industrial sector.
	Main Points	It indicates criteria to select papers, variables to analysis and indices It indicates contrasts among research areas, researcher(s) or university/organization contribution ranking It Introduces research impact for a new area	It evidences the selection criteria and publication profile It discusses objectivity and subjectivity in a contribution on Knowledge Management It indicates challenges and recommendations to theory-building and methodology	It indicates variables relating the topics of academic engagement and commercialization (service) It presents an analytical framework of external engagement by academic researchers based on the literature review It presents an agenda for future research

Source	Example	Strengths	Weaknesses
Library		A lot of information available in hardcopy, special literature can be ordered	Time consuming, often basic knowledge and not the latest research in the field
Selection-by-algorithm platforms, without inclusion criterion	Google Scholar	Quick and easily accessible, easy to get an overview of a topic	It broadens the field and put the risk of losing focus, it does not always shows the relevant articles
Restricted access, full text platforms, with inclusion criteria	Web of Science, Scopus, EBSCO, JStor	Focused search on author/journal/topics	Papers are just available for individuals or institutions which pay fees or have access to periodicos.capes.gov.br
Open access, full text platforms, with inclusion criteria	SciELO, RedALyC, SPELL	Open Access	Mainly Brazilian and Latin American academics Journals are available
Social network academic platforms, without inclusion criteria	Research Gate	Direct contact with authors	Some papers are not accessible because of copyright issues. Some authors may not return contact
Special Interest Groups		The latest research, ideas sharing and feedback	Accessible through most universities

[1] * dnnakano@usp.br

Brasil

Brasil

Writing the literature review for empirical papers

Abstract

Paper aims

Originality

Research method

Main findings

Implications for theory and practice