SYSTEMATIC LITERATURE REVIEW SUMMARIZE

HOW TO
CITATION
(Tranfield et al. 2003)

NOTED
The aim conducting literature review :
1. To enable the researcher both to map and to assess the existing intellectual territory;
2. To specify a research question to develop the existing body of knowledge further.
Contains : Reviewer decisions, procedures and conclusions.
Systematic literature review is Fundamental scientific activity, a key tool in developing the evidence base.
Key characteristic of an evidence-based approach are both rigorous in formulation and relevant to practice.
The quality of information accepted as evidence in a discipline is dependent on a number of criteria. These
include the broad intellectual approach, the value system adopted by researchers and commissioning bodies
and the usual research methods employed.
Stages :
1. Planning the review scoping, to assess the relevance and size of the literature and to delimit the
subject area or topic
Output : protocol review, contains information on the specific questions addressed by the study
(keywords), the population (or sample) that is the focus of the study (time), the search strategy for
identification of relevant studies (resources), and the criteria for inclusion and exclusion of studies in
the review (impact factors).
2. Conducting the review synthesizing, to provide a means of drawing insight from studies and for
addressing issues (form: table)
A quality assessment would include the following:
a. a primary marker: is the research aiming to explore the subjective meanings that people give to
particular experiences and interventions?;
b. context sensitive: has the research been designed in such a way as to enable it to be
sensitive/flexible to changes occurring during the study?;
c. sampling strategy: has the study sample been selected in a purposeful way shaped by theory
and/or attention given to the diverse contexts and meanings that the study is aiming to explore?;
d. data quality: are different sources of knowledge/under- standing about the issues being explored
or compared?;
e. theoretical adequacy: do researchers make explicit the process by which they move from data to

f.

interpretation?;
generalizability: if claims are made to generalizability do these follow logically and/or theoretically
from the data?

3. Reporting and dissemination

To provide a broad ranging descriptive account of the field with specific exemplars and an audit trail,
justifying his/her conclusions.
Linking themes across the various core contributions wherever possible and highlighting such links is
an important part of the reporting process.
(Randolph 2009)

Coopers Taxonomy Literature Review

Characteristic
Categories
Focus
Research outcomes
Research methods
Theories
Practices or applications
Goal
Integration: (a) Generalization (b) Conflict resolution (c) Linguistic bridge-building
Criticism
Identification of central issues
Perspective
Neutral representation
Espousal of position
Coverage
Exhaustive
Exhaustive with selective citation
Representative
Central or pivotal
Organization
Historical
Conceptual
Methodological
Audience
Specialized scholars
General scholars
Practitioners or policymakers
General public
Stages :

1. Problem formulation
What question the literature review will answer and determines explicit criteria to dictate the inclusion
or exclusion, of an article included in the review.
2. Data collection
Internet and data base search for articles, from references in each article.
3. Data evaluation
to extract and evaluate the information in the articles that met the inclusion criteria. To begin, the
reviewer devises a system for extracting data from the articles. The type of data extracted is
determined by the focus and goal of the review.
A coding book is an electronic document, such as a spreadsheet, or a physical form on which data are
recorded for each article.
4. Data analysis and interpretation
Data extracts depend on qualitative or quantitative research.
5. Formulating and justifying empirical research question.
If the study is a contribution to an established line of theory and empirical research, it should make
clear what the contributions are and how the study contributes to testing, elaborating, or enriching
that theoretical perspective.
If a study is intended to establish a new line of theory, it should make clear what that new theory is,
how it relates to existing theories and evidence, why the new theory is needed, and the intended
scope of its application.
If the study is motivated by practical concerns, it should make clear what those concerns are, why they
are important, and how this investigation can address those concerns.
If the study is motivated by a lack of information about a problem or issue, the problem formation
should make clear what information is lacking, why it is important, and how this investigation will
address the need for information.
the most frequent mistakes made in reviewing the literature are that the researcher:
1. does not clearly relate the findings of the literature review to the researchers own study;
2. does not take sufficient time to define the best descriptors and identify the best sources to use in review
literature related to ones topic;
3. relies on secondary sources rather than on primary sources in reviewing the literature;
4. uncritically accepts another researchers findings and interpretations as valid, rather than examining
critically all aspects of the research design and analysis;
5. does not report the search procedures that were used in the literature review;

6. reports isolated statistical results rather than synthesizing them by chi-square or meta-analytic methods;
and
7. does not consider contrary findings and alternative interpretations in synthesizing quantitative literature.

EXAMPLE
This section tries to summarize some references article from my supervisor underpinned from both above article about systematic literature
review. Some changes apply to make more suitable with this summarize activity purposes. The changes are :
1. From Coopers Taxonomy, not all characteristics included. Organization characteristics is not incorporate due to its purposes at review
evaluation process.
2. The final stages to conduct literature review replace by outcome. Based on the literature it should be public presentation, but for this
summarize assignment, the final outcome of literature review seem more important to display so I can figure out what is the result of
literature review.
3. Skip the analysis and interpretation stage because it strongly related to the article content.
AUTHORS
(Adams et
al. 2006)

(Bititci et al.
2012)

TAXONOMY

FOCUS
Research outcome
(finding gap).
The absence of a
holistic framework
covering the range
of activities
required to turn
ideas into useful
and marketable
products.

GOAL
Integration
To map the territory of innovation
management measurement

PERSPECTIVE COVERAGE
Neutral
Exhaustive with
selective criteria
(Delphi study).
First develop a
synthesized
framework of the
innovation
management process
consisting of seven
categories.
Second, it provides a
framework.

AUDIENCE
General scholar

Research outcome.
The evolution of the
performance-

Integration.
A literature synthesis.

Neutral

Specialized
scholar.
Research the

Exhaustive.
It covers a broad
literature base

(FrancoSantos et al.
2012)

(Keupp et
al. 2012)

(Leseure et
al. 1991)

(Elmquist et
al. 2009)

measurement
literature and
identifies that the
literature largely
follows the
emerging business
and global trends.
Research outcome.
To better
understand the
diverse effects of
CPM systems as
well as how these
effects occur.
Theories.
To promote future
theory
development

Practices or
application.
The promising
practices
terminology is used
to define the
subject matter of
the review.
Research
outcomes.
The purpose of this
paper is to review
the emerging
research field of

without in-depth
analysis of a
particular aspect of
performance
measurement.

Integration.
No integration study has been
conducted to better understand
the diverse effects of CPM systems
as well as how these effects occur

Integration

Integration
It also describes the challenges of
integrating a variety of empirical
data derived through different
approaches in a wide variety of
con texts.

Integration.
It aims at synthesizing the
understanding of open innovation
so far, but also at depicting the
major tendencies of research and
suggesting potentially important

Representative.
The list of papers used for the
scoping study was created based on
our knowledge of the topic and on
discussions with academic experts in
the area of performance
measurement and management.
Exhaustive with selective citation
Focused on the most influential
journals in the strategic
management field. These were
identified using Podsakoff et al.s
(2005) citation-based study.
Exhaustive
Based on its explanation on evidence
base part.

Exhaustive.

field of
performance
measurement.

Practitioners or
policymakers.
Provide
relevant
material for
policy decisions.

General
scholar.

(Randhawa
& Wilden
2014)
Use
bibliometric
methods of
network
based cocitation
analysis and
text mining.
AUTHORS
(Adams et
al. 2006)

(Bititci et al.
2012)

STAGES

open
innovation.
Theories.
To uncover the
theoretical
foundations and
key themes
underlying the
paradigm.

fields of investigation.

PROBLEM
FORMULATION
What are the
measures that have
been used, and to
what extent do
they adequately
populate and
dimensionalise a
comprehensive
analytic
framework?
Is performance
measurement
ready for the
emerging context?
What are the gaps
in our knowledge?
Which lines of
enquiry do we need
to pursue to

DATA COLLECTION

DATA EVALUATION

OUTCOME

Electronic databases.
hand searching of journals.
consultation with appropriate
experts.
the input of external experts
(questioner).

A typology of elements of the

innovation management process.

Innovation
management
models and
organizing
framework.

Hand search and citation tracking.

Electronic search and data base
strategy.
Key journals research.
Keyword searches were employed
using predefined search strings
(such as performance
measurement, performance
management, performance

Title and abstract analysis.

Inclusion, exclusion & quality filters
based on authors' previous
knowledge.
Selection of few works based on
citation tracking.
Key works of few "gurus
Authors.

A holistic
research
framework for
performance
measurement.

Integration.
To integrate concepts from these
research fields into open
innovation literature. Open
innovation research covers three
broad themes: (1) Technology, (2)
Business models and value
appropriation, and (3) Users and
communities.

develop a better
understanding of
performance
measurement
within the
emerging context?

(1) What are the

consequences of
CPM systems?
(2) What theories
have been used to
explain the
consequences of
CPM systems?

indicators, management control

and strategic control) to identify
articles published between 1980
and 2010 in specific management
databases (such as Business
Source Premier, Web of
Knowledge, Emerald Insight,
Scopus and Science Direct). Also, a
number of journals were chosen
because they attract a large
number of papers in the field of
performance measurement, very
often addressing a broad range of
managerial problems from a
performance-measurement
perspective.
electronic databases, namely, ISI
Web of Knowledge, EBESCO, and
ABI Proquest, using the keywords identified through the
scoping study and the names of
the fifteen selected journals.

created a summary table

including the main attributes of each
study. This table captured the
authors names, date the study was
published, area of research
(accounting, strategy/general
management or operations), type of
CPM system studied (A, B, C, or D)
including specific information
regarding the CPM framework used,
underpinning theory or theories used
to explain the CPM consequences,
methods of data collection and
analysis, consequences of CPM
systems, variables that moderate the
different consequences of CPM
systems, industry and country where
the research took place, and the level

Conceptual
framework
about the
impact of CPM.

(Keupp et
al. 2012)

Introduce
quantitative
way to do
SLR.

This paper is an
attempt to
systematically chart
out, on an
organizational level
of analysis, the
theoretical
conflicts,
knowledge gaps
and inconsistencies
that exist in
research on the
strategic
management of
innovation.
Promising paths for
future research on
the strategic
management of
innovation
How strategic
management can
benefit from
integrating relevant
findings from the
innovation field.

Focused on the most influential

journals in the strategic
management field. These were
identified using Podsakoff et al.s
(2005) citation-based study of 28
renowned management journals
as follows. First, we excluded the
bottom 14 journals, as they have
received fewer than 20% of the
citations that were made to the
28 journals in total over the period
19811999.
Second, from the remaining top
14 journals, we selected those
that were considered
representative and highly relevant
for the strategic management
field across a range of literature
review articles which focus on
strategic management.
The review thus covers the
following journals: Academy of
Management Journal, Academy of
Management Review,
Administrative Science Quarterly,
Journal of Management,

of analysis used in the research

(individual, team, department,
business unit, division, organization,
and beyond the organization level).
We classified the selected studies
according to their research method
and then in alphabetical order based
on the name of the first author.
Co-word analysis : sw bibexcel, the
cosine formula.
Cluster analysis.
Frequency analysis.

Comprehensive
review of the
strategic
management of
innovation

Make a major
methodological
contribution by
introducing
analytical methods
that are fully
consistent with the
systematic review
method (Tranfield
et al. 2003) and
deploy quantitative
techniques which to
date have been
used little in
literature review
studies.

Management Science,
Organization Science and
Strategic Management Journal.
Used a three-stage selection
process to identify
relevant articles from these
journals. First, we searched all
issues of these journals from 1992
to the last issue of 2010 that was
available on-line on July 26, 2010,
using various electronic databases
(Business Source Premier, JSTOR
and the journals homepages). We
chose 1992 as the cut-off point for
the past, because the prior
literature is nicely summarized by
Lengnick-Hall (1992) and Wolfe
(1994). The complete article count
over all journals and issues was
9173. Second, performed keyword
searches and retained those 3575
articles that contained the word
innovation and/or any of the
phrases Research and
Development, Research &
Development, R&D R & D, or R
and D in either their titles,
abstracts or full texts.
Classify to which (if any) the
article focused on (1) the strategic
management of innovation and
(2) an organizational level of
analysis, by rating each articles
title and abstract on separate

(Leseure et
al. 1991)

What empirical
evidence is
available regarding
the adoption rate
and success of
promising practices
in the UK, with a
focus on evidence
comparing the UK
with relevant
competitors?
What
comparative
empirical evidence
is there to explain
differences in (1)
the
170
adoption rate and
(2) the success rate
of promising
practices across

four-point scales anchored at not

at alland clearly.
Third, looked at the number of
citations each individual article
received in order to maximize the
relevance of the set of articles. we
compared the number of citations
each article received with the
average number of citations
received by articles appearing in
the respective year in the
respective journal.
The authors formed a review
panel from a range of disciplines
dealing with the issue of
promising practices (strategy and
performance, management,
operations management, work
psychology). Time was then spent
out- lining the precise nature of
the research objectives and the
domains to be sampled, resulting
in a review protocol. A number of
keywords relating to adoption of
best practice were chosen by the
authors and validated by a third
party. Three databases were used
for searching for combinations of
the keywords: ABI/ INFORMS,
Science Direct and Web of
Science.
Manual inclusion and exclusion of
papers from the results of
searches were conducted by the

Adoption of a unique frame of

reference : The problem with
integrating heterogeneous research
studies is that each study uses a
different frame of reference (e.g.
modeling an adoption decision
versus modeling implementation
actions). All the studies reviewed
have in common a concern for the
process of adopting and absorbing
an administrative innovation. In
order to compare different empirical
findings, it is necessary to position
them on a unique and universal
model of the adoption process. A
five-stage model of the adoption and
implementation process is built. The
next section describes this model in
more detail and discusses how it is
constructed;
Using a systematic method for the
cataloguing of evidence : Consider

Promoting
practice.

countries?
What are the
recommendations
implied by this
evidence?
The

(Elmquist et
al. 2009)

authors according to several

criteria
Each paper was then assessed
independently by three of the
authors as A (should be in
shortlist), B (uncertain), or C
(should not be in shortlist). This
assessment was done solely on
the basis of the abstract and
keywords.

First, a systematic literature

search of publications up until 20
November 2007 was performed in
two major databases of
management journals and an
additional innovation journal not
covered by the databases. All
articles that included the search
term open innovation in title,
keywords or abstract were
included in our sample.

again the problem of the multitude

of research hypotheses relating to
employee training. What is needed in
this review is a tool to group
together all these hypotheses in a
structured fashion so that the
acceptance and rejection patterns of
different but related research
hypotheses can be made sense of.
The qualitative data analysis
software NVivo is used for this
purpose. The method used is an
inductive analysis approach. The next
section provides an example of this
method at work.
A general division was made based
on an analysis of the abstracts of the
different papers.
The papers were divided among the
three authors in the research team
(again, each paper was read by two
persons) to check for relevance and
actual fit in the theme.
Each member of the research team
was responsible for sketching out the
content of each theme.