Posts tagged ‘Literature Review’

BAM2011 Live Blog 01 – Doctoral Symposium Day2

Disclaimer: This is a live blog. So be aware of typo and errors.

9:35am Doing a literature review in business and management

Prof.David Denyer and Dr,Colin Pilbeam

Cranfield University

1. What is a literature review?

– Keywords = Critical, reliable sources

– Identify the gaps in the literature. How?? – Finding a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow

– Being critical but not over-critical. also skeptical

– Convincing audience of your thesis.

– Clearly formulated question that uses systematic and explicit method … explaining what you have done. (NHS)

– A process if going up alley to see if they are blind -> Exploring and widen your knowledge

2. Why is a literature review so important?

– My answer -> Make sure that you will not repeat what have been done before but built up from the existing research.

– Literature review provides the foundations for your doctorate

Why manuscripts were rejected

– Methodology 74.3%
– Significance / So What 60.3?
– Writing Style 58.4%
– Literature Review
– Failure tp place study in the boarder context 25%

3. What makes a good literature Review

– Critical, Current, Convincing, Concise, Coherent, Relevant, Rigorous

– Literature can also makes contribution itself since you put several pieces of papers into the new way and find something new from that.

– Systematic -> Follow the appropriate process, similar to the research design.

– Literature Review should stems from research question which is different from the research question when you collect data. The later comes from the literature review.

– Try to narrow down the board question at the beginning of your PhD. This could be done by discussing with your supervisors or asking your PhD fellows and get the feedback from that. Don’t keep them in your head.

– Keep record what you have done. Then, evaluate it.

The Journey

– The end is published research

– Scoping the study

– What are journals that relevant to your works

– In most thesis or papers, there are 4-5 papers that they align their contributions on.

Specification of Your research by mapping your research using Vien-Euler diagram, identifying intersection areas, overlapping areas of each topics/disciplines.

– Plot the papers you have read onto that diagram

The Systematic Review Process

Stage1 Planning te review

Step1 Forming a review panel (supervisors, other students in a similar area, other school staffs)

Step2. Mapping your field of study

Step3 Producing a review protocol

Stage 2 Identifying and evaluating studies

Step4 Conducting a systematic research

Step5 Evaluating studies

Stage3 Extracting and synthesising data

…

• Database Searching: considering use search operators e.g., “and”, “*” (truncate), then you don’t have to search hundred times but 5-6 searches. This way will get 60-70%. You can find the rest by looking at the reference of the papers you found in he database seating.
• Make a note describing how did you select those papers and why.
• Describe every step of your research. Then you can explain to your supervisors and examiners
• Quality assessment: judge the papers themselves NOT the source coz you can find good papers in bad journals and bad paper in good journals.
• Go to the journal information section and look at the guide for reviewers to understand the quality checklist of such journals or disciplines
• You should have a note on each paper you read in a structure form/template. Then you can present the summary of the papers in the reviews in the tabulation form at the end of the review

11:07am Final conclusion

– As a reviewer , be sceptical, open minded, constructive and scrutinise

11:31am Research Conversation.

1:00 pm Lunch

2:00pm. Understanding the academic writing process: How to turn conference or working papera into journal articles by Dr.Carmel de Nahlik nad Dr.Colin Pilbeam

• Try to explain your research in an interesting fashion frequently e.g., with yourself every morning.
• What do you need to avoid. Main reasons why manuscripts were rejected.
  – No theory 21.7% of problems and 50.5% of manuscripts
  – Concepts and operationalisation not align, 13.6%, 31.5%
  – Insufficient definition of theory 10.5%, 24.3%
  – Insufficient rationale for design 10.5%, 24.3%
  – Macro-structure organisation flow 10.1%, 23.4% –> Look at the guideline of the journal
• What else you need to avoid? -> Exciting the readers!!! Make it interesting but don’t make it up. Looking at articles in “Academy of Management Review”
• What is required of you?
  – The Placement factor – target carefully. Which journals? -> where people who you want to communicate with.
  – The Seniority factor – have something to say and know how to say it. You don’t have to be old and grey to publish.
  –  The Professionalism factor – be careful. Grammar. Presentation. Reference. Tables and Figures. Reviewers will pick this up first! Hence give the readers the smooth ride. Don’t make them stop reading. Don’t underestimate how long it take to edit and craft the paper.
  -The Reject paper – a painful reality. This will happen. Be claim. Take the comments and critiques to improve your paper.
  – The Quantity factor – practice makes perfect
  – The Fun factor – enjoyment
  (Courtesy of Prof. David Buchanan, Cranfield School of Management.
• Guidlines for authors and research your journal – Decode the formula 
• What can you do to improve your chances?
  – Practices makes perfect!
  – Be professional
  – Be careful on every single bit of the manuscript
  – Research the journal

Words of Advices

• Verbs have to agree with their subjects
• Prepositions are not words to end sentences with
• ANd don’t start a sentence with a conjunction
• It is wrong to ever split an infinitive
• Comparisons as bad as cliches
• Analogies in writing are like feathers on a snake
• The passive voice is to be avoided
• Eliminate commas, that are not necessary
• Never use a big word when a diminutive one will suffice

Next steps

• What key points will you take away from this session to kick start your publication career?
• Write them down and review them?
• Can you find a writing partner to review and critique your work:
  – Already?
  – Here?
  – At this conference?
  – In your university or community of practice?

4:01pm ESRC support for researcher Development: What’s in it for you? An Introduction to the range of Relevant opportunities on offer by Professor Mike Wallace, Cardiff University 

• Lots of training and funding opportunities available not only ESCR funded students but also others.
• http://www.ncrm.ac.uk/ or http://www.esrc.ac.uk/
• Funding for trainings http://www.ncrm.ac.uk/about/funding/training/esrcbursaries.php?

4:40pm Closing plenary and discussion: ‘Academic Careers in Business and Management’ by Prof.Chales Harvey, Pro Vice-Chancellor, Newcastle University

• Business Schools are probably the hardest place to work in the university since they are very demanding environment, need to deal with many stakeholders. Then you need to be an expert on what you are doing. 
• Expectation in the business is super high now.
• How to get a job. In the interview, you need to engage the interviewees since they are considering to get you in their team.
• There is nothing more important than human capital cumulative network. Your extended networks of colleagues and friends is a critical in your career.
• Develop your good name and reputation. Depends on your personal behaviour.
• Be a bit scarification
• Being a good academic is reading and thinking critically
• Put yourself forward for promotion at the right time.
• Understand the rules of the game
• Business School is a great place to work!

5:17pm To Finish. by Professor Richard Thorpe, University of Leeds, on behalf of SAMS

• Scholarship and Funding for event available. Visit the website