Research Methods Lecture 4 17 November, 9-12 Johan Brink Aulan

Agenda Conducting a literature review BREAK Source criticism Meta-studies Reading

Reasons for writing a literature review WHY?

Reasons for writing a literature review 1.You need to know what is already known – reinventing the wheel 2.Learn from others mistakes and avoid them 3.Learn about different theoretical and methodological approaches 4.Understand the context of the problem 5.Understand the structure of the problem 6.Help you develop your analytical framework 7.Consider to include additional variables – extend research 8.Suggest future RQ’s 9.Help with the interpretation of your findings 10.Gives you pegs on which to hang your findings 11.Its expected!

A good literature review 1.Literature mentioned and discussed relates to the problem statement of the study 2.Mentions different theoretical ideas contributing to the future exploration or explanation of the study’s problem statement 3.Summarizes previous studies addressing and investigating the current study’s problem statement 4.Discusses the theoretical ideas mentioned against the background of the results of previous studies 5.Analyses and compares previous studies in the light of their research design and methodology 6.Demonstrates how the current study fits in with previous studies, and shows its specific new contribution

Narrative literature review Traditional To generate understanding rather than accumulating knowledge Evolving process Suitable for inductive studies Read! Keep notes Generate New keywords Search Note key words Note referred literature

Systematic literature review Critique against narrative literature review –can lack a means for making sense of what the collection of studies is saying –can be biased by the individual researcher –often lack rigor Not transparent Not reproducible –low emphasize on practitioners The relevance gap The language of practitioners

Systematic literature review Planning the review –Review Panel (Experts) –Review Protocol RQ The population The search strategy Inclusion & exclusion Conducting the review –Identification of research –Selection of studies –Quality assessment –Data extraction –Data analysis Reporting and dissemination –Report and recommendations –Disseminating into practice

Systematic literature review Planning the review –Review Panel (Experts) –Review Protocol RQ The population the search strategy Inclusion & exclusion Conducting the review –Identification of research –Selection of studies –Quality assessment –Data extraction –Data analysis Reporting and dissemination –Report and recommendations –Disseminating into practice Critique Depend on definitions Bureaucratic process Positivistic approach Tricky to deal with qualitative research

Notes ReferenceSummaryTypeTheoretical perspective Main RQ Main conclusion Research design Empirical data Good / Bad

References IT- Tools EndNote ProCite Mendeley … Style Harvard Footnotes (Page 117)

Searching Key words –Save them! Time dependent Different meaning in different discourses US/UK –AND, OR, NOT, *, ?, *,’xxx’ References –Times cited –Authors Search engines & library – –EBSCO – Review papers –Academy of Management Review –International Journal of Management Reviews

Discuss 2 and 2 Come up with a suggestion for at least 5 search terms for either a, b or c After break write on board Motivate your choices a)Who becomes an entrepreneur and what does it take to be a successful one? b)What explains the difference in internationalization strategies chosen by financial institutions in Europe? c)How effective is impression management in the consultancy industry?

Source criticism Trustworthy source –Updated? Independent sources Secondary sources –The Chinese whisper game! Motivation –Why do they say this? Peer reviewed, academic, journals Trade journals Books

Meta-analysis Combining / Pooling of quantitative studies Emerged in psychotherapy research in the 70ties Overall generalizations Positivistic Allows for an increase in power and thus based on a summary estimate of the effect size and its confidence interval, a certain intervention may be proved to be effective even if the individual studies lacked the power to show effectiveness (Ohlsson, 1994, p. 27)

Meta-ethnography Translate and interpretations of other researchers studies Translations between studies – what can I see in this? –Alternative interpretations –Higher order interpretations Synthesis and expressing (writing it up) Depends upon the richness in empirical material

Biblioteric studies

Bibliometric studies: Author co-citation

Bibliometric studies: Co-occurrence keywords

Bibliometric: Journal co-citation

Bibliometric studies: Author co-citation (min 5 co-citations)

Reading 1.Read abstract 2.Skim through it! 1.Title, headings, chapters 2.Check empirical evidence & kind of method 3.Check the references 4.Read sub-headings 1.Figures, tables, pictures… 5.Skim through preface and introduction 6.Read conclusions, interesting chapters, last chapter 7.….Everything else

Reading Take notes Nice position Fresh and crisp air Light Use highlighting pens Read & look at the text -Do not ‘sound out’ in your head -( no silent speech) Do not bother with trying to understand every word You actually reads sentences - Do not focus on every word Read with a ‘moving pen’ -Do not go back