Scoping reviews vis-à-vis systematic reviews and integrative reviews in management research: guidelines for good practice
Artikkelen diskuterer scoping review som metode i ledelsesforskning og dens styrker, bruksområder og begrensninger. Studien argumenterer for økt metodisk mangfold i litteraturgjennomganger og viser hvordan scoping reviews kan redusere research waste, styrke relevans og fremme kunnskapsutvikling. Videre klargjøres forskjeller mellom scoping reviews, systematiske og integrative oversikter.
Forfatter
Anniken Grønstad
Tidskrift
Review of Managerial Science
Abstract
Knowledge creation is the raison d’être of research. Management research has grown exponentially in recent decades. Parallel to the increase in primary research, there has been a substantial increase in review articles. However, scholars have called for increased methodological diversity when conducting review research in management disciplines. The aim of this paper is to contribute to the methodological arsenal in management research by discussing the merits, appropriate use, and limitations of scoping reviews, which despite increasing popularity remain poorly understood in this field. A high-quality scoping review contributes to reduced research waste and stronger research relevance and encourages researchers and stakeholders to team up in co-creation of knowledge, thus contributing to transparency and enhanced dissemination of results. By distinguishing between scoping reviews and its more familiar cousins in management research (i.e., systematic reviews and integrative reviews), it is our aim that systematic reviews and integrative reviews are not conducted for purposes better served by a scoping review and vice-versa.