Nevertheless, literature reviews have been and will continue to be a core element of MRQ.
Often, researchers seem unfamiliar with the process, structure, and presentation of systematic literature reviews and produce merely descriptive, annotated bibliographies of loosely connected research, which makes it unnecessary complex and difficult for the readers to follow the literature review.
The literature review therefore does not achieve its main goal of summarizing and categorizing knowledge.
Traditional literature reviews can have varied results because of a lack of rigour. https://doi.org/10.1108/AAAJ-01-2015-1939 Download as .
SLRs use a process that, through a set of rules, potentially offers less bias and more transparency of the execution and measures and techniques of validation and reliability.
It serves as the foundation for advancing knowledge, facilitates theory development, closes mature research areas, and uncovers novel research areas (Webster and Watson ) refer to a literature review as a “knowledge map”, which analyzes and synthesizes prior literature.
Because literature reviews are so prevalent, there exist already several comprehensive resources that guide authors through the steps necessary to conduct a literature review (e.g., Aguinis et al. Surprisingly, there is a still considerable variance in the understanding of what a literature review is and, consequently, in the quality of systematic literature reviews.
Therefore, the authors describe ten steps for developing an SLR.
The SLR method is a way that scholars can stand “on the shoulders of giants” and provide insightful and impactful research that is different to the traditional authorship approaches to literature reviews.
An SLR is a method for examining a corpus of scholarly literature, to develop insights, critical reflections, future research paths and research questions.
SLRs are common in scientific disciplines dominated by quantitative approaches, but they can be adapted in accounting studies since quantitative and qualitative approaches are commonly accepted.