Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Palette of Literature Reviews Available for Critical Realists

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Collaborative Research Design

Abstract

The chapter gives scholars insight into how different types of literature reviews can be conducted if you do research from a critical realist stance. Some researchers, because of their paradigmatic stances, have predetermined ideas about conducting a literature review. This makes sense if the researcher belongs to the positivist paradigm, where a researcher favours a meta-analysis review (systematically and empirically reviewing quantitative studies), whereas a researcher belonging to the interpretivist paradigm will prefer to conduct meta-synthesis reviews (reviewing qualitative studies and their interpretations). For a critical realist, more approaches are available, with the main proviso that the reviews undertaken are done in a systematic and transparent way. This chapter focuses on the critical realist options and provides researchers with an overview of different types of reviews to choose from. The chapter does not give an exhaustive account of all the reviews existing; rather, it gives scholars insight into the different review varieties that exist and thus prepares the scholar to take an active choice of what review to conduct in connection to its purpose and objectives.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 139.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Bair, C.R. 1999. Doctoral student attrition and persistence: A meta-synthesis. Doctoral dissertation, Loyola University of Chicago.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boote, David, and Penny Beile. 2005. Scholars before researchers: On the centrality of the dissertation literature review in research preparation. Educational Researcher 34 (6): 3–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borenstein, Michael, Larry V. Hedges, Julian P.T. Higgins, and Hannah R. Rothstein. 2010. A basic introduction to fixed-effect and random-effect models for meta-analysis. Research Synthesis Methods 1 (2): 97–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brinckmann, Jan, Dietmar Grichnik, and Diana Kapsa. 2010. Should entrepreneurs plan or just storm the castle? A meta-analysis on contextual factors impacting the business planning-performance relationship in small firms. Journal of Business Venturing 25 (1): 24–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carnwell, Ros, and William Daly. 2002. Strategies for the construction of a critical review of the literature. Nurse Education in Practice 1 (2): 57–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, Harris M. 1988. Organizing knowledge syntheses: A taxonomy of literature reviews. Knowledge in Society 1 (1): 104–126.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cronin, Patricia, Frances Ryan, and Michael Coughlan. 2008. Undertaking a literature review: A step-by-step approach. British Journal of Nursing 17 (1): 38–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Czarniawska, Barbara. 1999. Writing management: Organization theory as a literary genre. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Denney, Andrew S., and Richard Tewksbury. 2013. How to write a literature review. Journal of Criminal Justice Education 24 (2): 218–234.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dixon-Woods, Mary, Shona Agarwal, David Jones, Bridget Young, and Alex Sutton. 2005. Synthesising qualitative and quantitative evidence: A review of possible methods. Journal of Health Services Research and Policy 10 (1): 45–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doucouliagos, Hristos, and Mehmet A. Ulubaşoğlu. 2008. Democracy and economic growth: a meta-analysis. American Journal of Political Science 52 (1): 61–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Evald, Majbritt R., Helle A. Nissen, Ann H. Clarke, and Kristin B. Munksgaard. 2014. Reviewing cross-field Public Private Innovation literature: Current research themes and future research themes yet to be explored. International Public Management Review 15 (2): 1–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fink, Arlene G. 2014. Conducting research literature reviews: From the internet to paper. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flick, U. 2013. The handbook of qualitative data analysis, Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frank, Hermann., and Hatak, Isabella. 2014. ‘Doing a research literature review’, in Fayolle, Alan and Wright, Mike (Eds.) ‘How to get published in the best entrepreneurship journals’, Edward Elgar, chapter 6, 94–117.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gartner, William B. 1988. Who is the entrepreneur? Is the wrong question. American Journal of Small Business 12 (4): 11–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gartner, William B., Barbara J. Bird, and Jennifer A. Starr. 1992. Acting as if: Differentiating entrepreneurial from organizational behavior. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 16 (3): 13–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grant, Paul, and Lew Perren. 2002. Small business and entrepreneurial research: Meta-theories, paradigms and prejudices. International Small Business Journal 20 (2): 185–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haneline, Michael T. 2007. Evidence-based chiropractic practice. Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hart, Chris. 1998. Doing a literature review. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hedges, Larry V., and Ingram Olkin. 1985. Statistical methods for meta-analysis. London: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoon, Christina. 2013. Meta-synthesis of qualitative case studies: An approach to theory building. Organizational Research Methods 16 (4): 522–556.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hunter, John E., and Frank L. Schmidt. 2004. Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting error and bias in research findings. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, Marian V., Nicole Coviello, and Yee Kwan Tang. 2011. International entrepreneurship research (1989–2009): A domain ontology and thematic analysis. Journal of Business Venturing 26 (6): 632–659.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Katz, Jerome A. 2000. ‘Core publications in entrepreneurship and related fields: A guide to getting published’, version 3.2.4, [available at http://www.slu.edu/eweb/booklist.htm].

  • Klassen, Terry P., Alejandro R. Jahad, and David Moher. 1998. Guides for reading and interpreting systematic reviews. Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine 152 (7): 700–704.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maier, Holger R. 2013. ‘What constitutes a good literature review and why does its quality matter?’ Environmental Modelling and Software 43: 3–4.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nielsen, Suna L., and Astrid H. Lassen. 2012. Images of entrepreneurship: Towards a new categorization of entrepreneurship. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal 8 (3): 35–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Noblit, George W., and R. Dwight Hare. 1988. Meta-Ethnography: Synthesizing qualitative studies. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE Publications.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Petticrew, Mark, and Helen Roberts. 2005. Systematic reviews in the social sciences: A practical guide. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Randolph, Justus J. 2009. ‘A guide to writing the dissertation literature review’, Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 14 (13) [Available at http://pareonline.net/getvn.asp?v=14&n=13].

  • Reinard, John C. 2006. Communication research statistics. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Rhoades, Ellen A. 2011. ‘Literature reviews’. Volta Review 111 (3): 353–368.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rowley, J., and F. Slack. 2004. Conducting a literature review. Management Research News 27 (6): 31–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sandelowski, Margarete, Sharron Docherty, and Carolyn Emden. 1997. Qualitative metasynthesis: Issues and techniques. Research in Nursing & Health 20: 365–371.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shane, Scott, and Sankaran Venkataraman. 2000. The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research. Academy of Management Review 25 (1): 217–226.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stanley, Tom D. 2001. Wheat from chaff: Meta-analysis as quantitative literature review. Journal of Economic Perspectives 15 (3): 131–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steward, Barbara. 2004. Writing a literature review. British Journal of Occupational Therapy 67 (11): 495–500.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Torraco, Richard J. 2005. Writing integrative literature reviews: Guidelines and examples. Human Resource Development Review 4 (3): 356–367.

    Google Scholar 

  • Transfield, David, David Denyer, and Palminder Smart. 2003. Towards a methodology for developing evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. British Academy of Management 14: 207–222.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Praag, C.Miriam, and Peter H. Versloot. 2007. What is the value of entrepreneurship? A review of recent research. Small Business Economics 29 (4): 351–382.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walsh, Denis, and Soo Downe. 2005. Meta-analysis method for qualitative research: A literature review. Methodological Issues in Nursing Research 50 (2): 204–211.

    Google Scholar 

  • Webster, Jane, and Richard T. Watson. 2002. Analyzing the past to prepare for the future: Writing a literature review. MIS Quarterly 26 (2): xiii–xxiii.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weed, Mike. 2005. ‘Meta interpretation: A method for the interpretative synthesis of qualitative research’. Forum: Qualitative Social Research 6 (1), Art. 37, [available at http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs0501375].

  • Weed, Mike. 2008. A potential method for the interpretive synthesis of qualitative research: Issues in the development of “Meta-Interpretation”. International Journal of Social Research Methodology 11 (1): 13–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weick, Karl E. 1995. What theory is not, theorizing is. Administrative Science Quarterly 40 (3): 385–390.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whittemore, Robin, and Kathleen Knafl. 2005. The integrative review: Updated methodology. Methodological Issues in Nursing Research 52 (5): 546–553.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Southern Denmark, Kolding, Denmark

    Majbritt Rostgaard Evald

Authors
  1. Majbritt Rostgaard Evald
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Majbritt Rostgaard Evald .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. University of Southern Denmark, Kolding, Denmark

    Per Vagn Freytag

  2. University of Southern Denmark, Kolding, Denmark

    Louise Young

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Evald, M.R. (2018). The Palette of Literature Reviews Available for Critical Realists. In: Freytag, P., Young, L. (eds) Collaborative Research Design. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-5008-4_5

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation