Systematic Literature Reviews in Business Administration: Dead, Alive, or in Need of Reinvention?
Main Article Content
Abstract
Systematic literature reviews (SLRs) have become a fixture of management scholarship, yet a commensurate rise has not matched their exponential proliferation in theoretical contribution. This editorial argues that SLRs in management are neither dead nor merely alive; they are at an inflection point that demands both methodological and intellectual reinvention. The core problem is not the method itself but the predominance of a descriptive, bibliometric mode of execution that delivers mapping when leading journals increasingly demand explanation, critical reflection, theoretical insight, and forward-looking research agendas. Drawing on recent advances in theory development and research methodology, this editorial proposes a portfolio of approaches ranging from framework-based integrative reviews and meta-analytic structural equation modeling to realist synthesis and theory-driven reviews organized by the level of theoretical contribution each can generate. A decision framework guides researchers in choosing the approach most aligned with their epistemological commitments and the field's maturity. The editorial concludes with explicit expectations for SLR submissions to the Brazilian Administration Review.
Downloads
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
References
Aromataris, E., Fernandez, R., Godfrey, C., Holly, C., Khalil, H., & Tungpunkom, P. (2015). Summarizing systematic reviews: Methodological development, conduct and reporting of an umbrella review approach. International Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare, 13(3), 132–140. https://doi.org/10.1097/XEB.0000000000000055
Callon, M. (1984). Some elements of a sociology of translation: Domestication of the scallops and the fishermen of St Brieuc Bay. The Sociological Review, 32(1 Suppl.), 196–233. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-954X.1984.tb00113.x
Chen, Y., Mandler, T., & Meyer-Waarden, L. (2021). Three decades of research on loyalty programs: A literature review and future research agenda. Journal of Business Research, 124, 179–197. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.11.057
Cheung, M. W.-L., & Cheung, S. F. (2016). Random-effects models for meta-analytic structural equation modeling: Review, issues, and illustrations. Research Synthesis Methods, 7(2), 140–155. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1166
Denyer, D., & Tranfield, D. (2009). Producing a systematic review. In D. A. Buchanan & A. Bryman (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of organizational research methods (pp. 671–689). Sage.
Donthu, N., Kumar, S., Mukherjee, D., Pandey, N., & Lim, W. M. (2021). How to conduct a bibliometric analysis: An overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research, 133, 285–296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.04.070
Edmondson, A. C., & McManus, S. E. (2007). Methodological fit in management field research. Academy of Management Review, 32(4), 1246–1264. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.2007.26586086
Fusar-Poli, P., & Radua, J. (2018). Ten simple rules for conducting umbrella reviews. Evidence-Based Mental Health, 21(3), 95–100. https://doi.org/10.1136/ebmental-2018-300014
Galleli, B., & Amaral, L. (2026). Bridging institutional theory and social and environmental efforts in management: A review and research agenda. Journal of Management, 52(1), 42–93. https://doi.org/10.1177/01492063251322429
Habersang, S., Küberling-Jost, J., Reihlen, M., & Seckler, C. (2019). A process perspective on organizational failure: A qualitative meta-analysis. Journal of Management Studies, 56(1), 19–56. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12341
Hollebeek, L. D., Kumar, V., Srivastava, R. K., Lim, W. M., & Urbonavicius, S. (2025). Guidelines for theory selection: The IMPACT framework. Psychology & Marketing, 42(11), 2789–2806. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.70009
Jak, S., & Cheung, M. W.-L. (2024). A cautionary note on using univariate methods for meta-analytic structural equation modeling. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 7(3), Article 25152459241274249. https://doi.org/10.1177/25152459241274249
Kilduff, M., & O’Sullivan, D. (2026). Where’s the theory contribution? An answer in four parts. Organizational Psychology Review, 16(1), 127–140. https://doi.org/10.1177/20413866241233739
Kraus, S., Breier, M., Lim, W. M., Dabi?, M., Kumar, S., Kanbach, D., Mukherjee, D., Corvello, V., Piñeiro-Chousa, J., Liguori, E., Palacios-Marqués, D., Schiavone, F., Ferraris, A., Fernandes, C., & Ferreira, J. J. (2022). Literature reviews as independent studies: Guidelines for academic practice. Review of Managerial Science, 16(8), 2577–2595. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-022-00588-8
Krlev, G., Hannigan, T., & Spicer, A. (2025). What makes a good review article? Empirical evidence from management and organization research. Academy of Management Annals, 19(1). https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2021.0051
Ladeira, W. J., Lim, W. M., Santini, F. O., Rasul, T., Frantz, B., Rosa, J. C. O., & Azhar, M. (2025). Consumer adoption of Internet of Things. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 24(2), 673-693. https://doi.org/10.1002/cb.2427
Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor-network-theory. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780199256044.001.0001
Lim, W. M. (2025). Systematic literature reviews: Reflections, recommendations, and robustness check. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 24(3), 1498–1510. https://doi.org/10.1002/cb.2479
Lim, W. M. (2026a). Theory and theory development: Guidelines for establishing theoretical gaps, foundations, contributions, and implications. Journal of Business Research, 202, 115745. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2025.115745
Lim, W. M. (2026b). A framework of frameworks: Theoretical, conceptual, contextual, methodological and impact frameworks. Journal of Trade Science, 14(2), 89-105. https://doi.org/10.1108/JTS-08-2025-0042
Lim, W. M., & Kumar, S. (2024). Guidelines for interpreting the results of bibliometric analysis: A sensemaking approach. Global Business and Organizational Excellence, 43(2), 17–26. https://doi.org/10.1002/joe.22229
Mukherjee, D., Lim, W. M., Kumar, S., & Donthu, N. (2022). Guidelines for advancing theory and practice through bibliometric research. Journal of Business Research, 148, 101–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.04.042
Noblit, G. W., & Hare, R. D. (1988). Meta-ethnography: Synthesizing qualitative studies. Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412985000
Palmatier, R. W., Houston, M. B., & Hulland, J. (2018). Review articles: Purpose, process, and structure. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 46(1), 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-017-0563-4
Paul, J., & Barari, M. (2022). Meta-analysis and traditional systematic literature reviews: What, why, when, where, and how? Psychology & Marketing, 39(6), 1099–1115. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.21657
Paul, J., & Rosado-Serrano, A. (2019). Gradual internationalization vs born-global/international new venture models: A review and research agenda. International Marketing Review, 36(6), 830–858. https://doi.org/10.1108/IMR-10-2018-0280
Paul, J., Lim, W. M., O’Cass, A., Hao, A. W., & Bresciani, S. (2021). Scientific procedures and rationales for systematic literature reviews (SPAR-4-SLR). International Journal of Consumer Studies, 45(4), O1–O16. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.12695
Pawson, R., & Tilley, N. (1997). Realistic evaluation. Sage.
Petticrew, M., & Roberts, H. (2006). Systematic reviews in the social sciences: A practical guide. Blackwell Publishing.
Pimentel, P. C., Bassi-Suter, M., & Didonet, S. R. (2024). Brand activism as a marketing strategy: An integrative framework and research agenda. Journal of Brand Management, 31(2), 212–234. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41262-023-00335-8
Sandberg, J., & Alvesson, M. (2011). Ways of constructing research questions: Gap-spotting or problematization? Organization, 18(1), 23–44. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350508410372151
Sauer, P. C., & Seuring, S. (2023). How to conduct systematic literature reviews in management research: A guide in 6 steps and 14 decisions. Review of Managerial Science, 17, 1899–1933. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-023-00668-3
Siddaway, A. P., Wood, A. M., & Hedges, L. V. (2019). How to do a systematic review: A best practice guide for conducting and reporting narrative reviews, meta-analyses, and meta-syntheses. Annual Review of Psychology, 70, 747–770. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010418-102803
Timulak, L. (2009). Meta-analysis of qualitative studies: A tool for reviewing qualitative research findings in psychotherapy. Psychotherapy Research, 19(4-5), 591–600. https://doi.org/10.1080/10503300802477989