Review Research as Scientific Inquiry

Abstract

This article and the related Feature Topic at Organizational Research Methods upcoming were motivated by the concern that despite the bourgeoning number and diversity of review articles, there was a lack of guidance on how to produce rigorous and impactful literature reviews. In this article, we introduce review research as a class of research inquiries that uses prior research as data sources to develop knowledge contributions for academia, practice and policy. We first trace the evolution of review research both outside of and within management including the articles published in this Feature Topic, and provide a holistic definition of review research. Then, we argue that in the plurality of forms of review research, the alignment of purpose and methods is crucial for high-quality review research. To accomplish this, we discuss several review purposes and criteria for assessing review research's rigor and impact, and discuss how these and the review methods need to be aligned with its purpose. Our paper provides guidance for conducting or evaluating review research and helps establish review research as a credible and legitimate scientific endeavor.

Literature reviews of qualitative accounting research: challenges and opportunities

“…The volume of research published in academic journals and other outlets has significantly increased over the past few decades (Booth et al , 2021; Kraus et al , 2021), and business research, including accounting research, is no exception (Andiola et al , 2017; Dyckman and Zeff, 2015; Kraus et al , 2020; Kunisch et al , 2018, 2023; Paul and Criado, 2020; Snyder, 2019; Zeff, 2019). Hence, researchers, especially junior scholars such as PhD students, may find it difficult to stay up-to-date in their area of interest and recognize which relevant and interesting research questions remain to be answered (Petticrew and Roberts, 2012; Kraus et al , 2021).…”

“…Because such evidence-based reviews focus on a phenomenon observed in organizational practice or a related question, they would mostly apply to use case (i) reviews of a certain domain of accounting research. Authors of evidence-based reviews usually collect all relevant research items that can shed light on the phenomenon (Kunisch et al , 2023; Rousseau et al , 2008) – without defining in advance on which theoretical basis the research items must rest to qualify for inclusion in the review sample. Researchers may then inductively – and thus, without a predefined theoretical framework in mind – analyze the review sample.…”

“…Methodological advice on how to conduct literature reviews in business-related disciplines has long lagged behind the much faster growth in published reviews (Breslin et al, 2021;Kraus et al, 2020;Kunisch et al, 2018Kunisch et al, , 2023. More recently, several works on mastering review methods and generating impactful literature reviews have been published.…”

Using review articles to address societal grand challenges

“…Management scholars have increasingly recognized the distinct nature and value of review articles to make knowledge contributions (e.g., Kunisch et al., 2023; McMahan & McFarland, 2021; Rojon et al., 2021; Siddaway et al., 2019; Snyder, 2019). In general, this form of scholarly inquiry ‘employs scientific methods to analyse and synthesize prior research to develop new knowledge for academia, practice and policy‐making’ (Kunisch et al., 2023: 5).…”

“…Management scholars have increasingly recognized the distinct nature and value of review articles to make knowledge contributions (e.g., Kunisch et al., 2023; McMahan & McFarland, 2021; Rojon et al., 2021; Siddaway et al., 2019; Snyder, 2019). In general, this form of scholarly inquiry ‘employs scientific methods to analyse and synthesize prior research to develop new knowledge for academia, practice and policy‐making’ (Kunisch et al., 2023: 5). Review articles can build an actionable knowledge base because they identify accumulated research on the same problem, thus overcoming the limitations of a single study (Denyer & Tranfield, 2006).…”