AOM2020: Publishing Rigorous and Impactful Literature Reviews in Business and Management Research
Symposium on 12 August 2020
Key learning points:
1. Miner vs prospector strategy in literature review.
Miners spot conceptual gaps, organize and categorize literatures, problematize the literature. While some advice doctoral students to do this as it is lower risk, another significant risk is not getting the paper published at all in high impact journals.
Prospectors set out new narratives and conceptualization, blend and merge literatures across domains, and develop analogies and metaphors across domains. This is higher risk as it is not easy to accomplish, yet when done well is likely to get published in a high impact journal.
2. Two types of reviews we can write: what do we know vs what should we know?
What do we know seeks to: find a definite answer to a verifiable question, more convergent, can be meta-analysis or systematic review, sense-giving in nature, broad conclusions and practical relevance, usually cited to support theoretical arguments.
What should we know seeks to: aim to redirect the field, more divergent, rely on narrative or integrative review, sense-making in nature, changes thinking about the topic, contextualized practical relevance, usually cited to support contribution of new research.
3. Be thorough in breadth, length, and depth. Position your paper to be thorough, honest, and accurate to contribute to the conversation in the literature. This clarifies the state of the literature and set the stage for your work.
Key afterthoughts:
The point about miners versus prospectors resonates with me – do we encourage PhD students to take a low-yet-high risk approach of being a miner, or do we push them towards a high-risk strategy of being a prospector?
I guess there is no fixed way to do this. As what some panelists shared towards the end, having a senior scholar with experience in being a prospector guide a junior scholar or PhD student is probably the best way at publishing narrative-changing review papers (i.e. mitigating the high-risk that comes with it). Otherwise, taking a miner approach might be the go-to approach for most PhD students.
Resources:
Short (2009). The art of writing a review article. Journal of Management, 35(6): 1312-1317








