literature review

Australasian Marketing Journal 27 (2019) 187–196

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Australasian Marketing Journal

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ausmj

Critically reviewing literature: A tutorial for new researchers

Karen V. Fernandez

Department of Marketing, The University of Auckland, Owen G Glenn Building, Room 417, Level 4, 12 Grafton Road, Private Bag 92019, Auckland 1142, New

Zealand

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:

Received 8 March 2019

Revised 2 May 2019

Accepted 16 May 2019

Available online 3 June 2019

Keywords:

Literature review

Critical

Research

Thesis

Tutorial

a b s t r a c t

Critically reviewing the literature is an indispensible skill which is used throughout a research career. This

demystifies the processes involved in systematically and critically reviewing the literature to demonstrate

knowledge, identify research ideas and questions, position research and develop theory. A three stage

model (assembling, arranging and assessing), each with two interrelated steps, is presented and dis-

cussed, along with practical tips and helpful examples. Although aimed primarily at research students,

this information in this article will also be useful for research supervisors who wish to find ways to pass

along their tacit knowledge related to this critical research skill.

© 2019 Australian and New Zealand Marketing Academy. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

c h i n e s e a b s t r a c t

���������������������. ��������������������������, �

����, ���������, ���������. �����������, ��������������

��������������������, ���������� . ������� ������ ( �� ,

����� ) , �� � �� � ��� � �� �, ���� ����� ��� .

© 2019 Australian and New Zealand Marketing Academy. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1

o

u

i

f

O

c

t

c

m

s

a

i

c

p

p

t

p

v

v

v

E

s

t

t

h

i

p

p

l

h

1

“Many literature reviews are found to be either incomplete,

overly descriptive (reviewers feel they are reading a “cata-

logue”), or insufficiently selective…. the aim is not to reproduce

everything that the author has read on the subject or every-

thing that has been written, but to (critically) examine studies

that will enable one to go a little further…”

Christian Pinson (2008)

. Introduction

A research student’s first exposure to the literature (a collection

f academic research, usually in the form of articles and books)

sually involves finding and reading multiple papers, to identify an

dea to serve as the basis of his/her thesis. (Please refer to Table 1

or the definitions of this and other key concepts in this paper).

nce a student starts working on a topic, s/he is expected to be-

ome familiar with a significant amount of literature related to

hat topic. S/he will be asked to demonstrate this familiarity by

onducting and writing up a literature review – a systematic sum-

ary and evaluation of prior academic research – as part of a the-

is proposal. Even after a thesis proposal is approved, s/he will be

E-mail address: k.fernandez@auckland.ac.nz

t

“

(

ttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.ausmj.2019.05.001

441-3582/© 2019 Australian and New Zealand Marketing Academy. Published by Elsevier

sked to include an even more extensive review of the literature

n their thesis proper. Moreover, doctoral students adopting the in-

reasingly popular “thesis with publications” option find that each

roposed article requires its own literature review.

Research students who propose a “conceptual” paper (i.e. a pa-

er with no empirical data) as their first publication will soon find

hat the contribution(s) and publication success of conceptual pa-

ers often largely depend on the outcomes of their literature re-

iews. In fact, it is even possible to publish integrative literature

iews (a literature review that synthesizes different concepts to de-

elop new insights) as papers in their own right ( Torraco 2005 ).

ven empirical articles (i.e. that include the collection and analy-

is of data) still include literature reviews between the Introduc-

ion and the Methodology sections. Finally, even after graduating

o become fully-fledged academics, researchers will find that they

ave to demonstrate an in-depth knowledge of the relevant exist-

ng literature in their area(s) in order to publish sufficiently to get

romoted ( Alpert and Kamins 2004; Snuggs and Jevons 2018 ).

A decade after Pinson wrote the words at the start of this pa-

er, editors, reviewers and examiners are still complaining about

iterature reviews that are disappointing ( Reuber 2010 ) because

hey consist mainly of “agonizing long” ( Alpert and Kamins 2004 ),

mind-numbing lists of citations… that resemble a phone book”

Webster and Watson 2002 , p.xiv). Obviously, the practical skills

Ltd. All rights reserved.

188 K.V. Fernandez / Australasian Marketing Journal 27 (2019) 187–196

Table 1

Key terms.

Term Definition and notes

Literature A body of (usually written) work e.g. academic articles, published conference papers, book chapters and entire books. “The literature”

usually does not include articles in the popular press (e.g. newspapers) although a few of these may be cited in the introduction to note the

importance and/or relevance of the topic being researched.

Literature review A summary and evaluation of the relevant literature.

Systematic review Using a logical and complete plan to find and evaluate the literature on the stated topic that is explained clearly and in enough detail to

allow others to carry out the same review.

Critical review A critical review is a detailed analysis and assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of the ideas and information in written text.

p

c

p

o

a

c

p

b

2

v

o

m

n

a

d

v

a

(

w

s

o

o

c

w

t

a

2

t

T

t

B

r

t

T

h

b

s

a

r

a

m

a

t

f

s

I

s

o

that students need should go beyond data-handling skills ( Uncles

2018 ) to include literature-handling skills. Unfortunately, the im-

portant ability to critically review the literature requires sophisti-

cated and complex skills ( Torraco 2005 ) that are difficult for su-

pervisors to pass on. Consequently, the purpose of this article is to

provide a practical and pragmatic guide to systematically complet-

ing a critical review of the literature.

The task of reviewing the literature is influenced by the type of

literature review being undertaken, the relative maturity and co-

hesiveness of the literature relevant to the topic of interest, and by

the norms of the particular discipline the author is working within.

For example, a scoping review, an initial review that seeks to “as-

sess the relevance and size of the literature …to delimit the …

topic” ( Tranfield et al. 2003 , p.214) focuses more on searching for

material, rather than critically evaluating it. However, it is often

the precursor for an integrative literature review - research that

“reviews, critiques and synthesizes representative literature on a

topic in an integrated way such that new frameworks and perspec-

tives on the topic are generated” ( Torraco 2005 , p.356). Naturally, a

mature topic that is very cohesive (e.g. the topic of nostalgic con-

sumption, which has been studied by a core group of researchers

for some time) will be more straightforward to review because

there are clearer, more closely linked, sets of studies. Conversely,

an emerging topic with strands of knowledge buried in disparate

areas (e.g. the impact of digitization on self-presentation) requires

far wider search for work that will be far more challenging to in-

tegrate.

Given the diversity of the types of literature reviews, the di-

verse nature of material they cover and the ways they can be car-

ried out, it is important that literature reviews should be guided

by a stated, specific question ( Briner and Denyer 2012; Callahan

2014; Torraco 2005 ). The guiding question might arise from a prac-

tical question or personal observation. For example, did an appar-

ent gap in researcher knowledge (e.g. the lack of an easily imple-

mentable way to measure a key construct) motivate the review, or

was the purpose of the review to identify these gaps (what are

the deficiencies in the research on the key construct?). Keeping

the research question at the forefront at all times will assist the

researcher in deciding how to search for articles, and what to in-

clude/exclude from review.

Systematic reviews must critique the literature that is found.

According to Torraco (2005) , being critical goes beyond identify-

ing strengths e.g. the development and consistent use of improved

measures for the key construct) and major contributions (e.g. a

new concept that has generated practical benefits for practition-

ers) to identify and report on mistakes (e.g. a method not being

employed rigorously according to the paradigm the authors were

working within) and neglected issues (e.g. inconsistent and incom-

patible definition of a key construct). Critical analysis can uncover

issues that have been taken for granted ( Callahan 2014 ). For exam-

ple, my critical review of the definition of consumer agency un-

covered that many papers in consumer research, even those with

agency in the title, did not define agency.

Consequently, this article goes beyond the articles already pub-

lished on this topic by offering practical tips and helpful exam-

les to help research students bridge the gap between a theoreti-

al understanding of what is needed and the ability to practically

ut that knowledge into practice. This article will first discuss five

f the outcomes that a good systematic literature review should

chieve. Next, each of the three stage of the literature review pro-

ess will be discussed in detail, along with practical tips and exam-

les as to how to go about the tasks involved. This will be followed

y suggestions to assist in actually writing the review.

. The outcomes of a literature review

I have deliberately and repeatedly used the term “literature re-

iew” rather than calling this endeavor a “summary of each article

n a topic.” A good literature review is not a collection of sum-

aries of individual articles. The focus of a literature review should

ot be on the individual article, but on a body of work (the set of

rticles and books on a particular topic). Good literature reviews

o not include everything written on the topic. The literature re-

iews in published articles do not, and should not, include every

rticle that the authors have read. Instead, a good literature review

1) demonstrates that the author is knowledgeable about the prior

ork on the relevant topic(s), (2) identifies research gaps (e.g. is-

ues that have been not been examined, have been mis-studied,

r that have resulted in inconsistent findings) for the author and

thers, and provides the foundation for authors to (3) develop pre-

isely stated research questions for their own further research as

ell as (4) positions an empirical article or a thesis with respect

o prior literature, and (5) develops theory. The next part of this

rticle discusses each of these five outcomes in more detail.

.1. Demonstrating knowledge

The literature review shows reviewers or examiners that the au-

hor is familiar with relevant prior and current relevant research.

his is done by reading, and then citing, previous articles on that

opic (particularly in the target journal) in an accurate manner.

oth classic work and recent work must be cited (the authors of

ecent work cited, especially if it is in the target journal, are likely

o be invited to review the paper or become thesis examiners).

his is where the idea of being “systematic” comes in. A researcher

as to make a plan about how to tackle their literature review, and

e clear about what (in terms of date ranges, journals, databases,

earch terms and combinations of search terms) will be included

nd excluded. These decisions should be reported in the written

eview, particularly if it is the whole paper or chapter is a liter-

ture review. As Callahan (2010) explains even who (e.g. one or

ore authors and/or research assistants) searched for the literature

nd when the search was carried out should be reported.

If at all possible, researchers MUST read the actual material

hey are citing. (If a researcher reads a translated version of a

oreign-language resource, or is unable to source the original, s/he

hould make this clear in the way the resource is referenced.)

f one merely includes a paper based on what someone else

aid about it, one runs the risk of reporting on, and/or using,

r even citing that paper incorrectly. As a simple example, the

K.V. Fernandez / Australasian Marketing Journal 27 (2019) 187–196 189

G

c

n

h

e

w

R

i

w

2

k

e

o

s

i

p

f

t

b

p

m

o

i

w

s

r

2

o

(

v

s

t

t

t

c

o

p

a

e

p

a

s

E

t

l

v

t

n

t

t

t

t

a

r

t

a

e

t

e

n

t

t

t

v

p

h

(

e

a

o

b

e

h

i

2

a

o

m

t

i

t

h

s

s

p

t

n

a

w

t

h

h

s

d

t

c

t

b

c

2

d

s

i

q

s

w

r

d

i

f

p

t

o

r

a

h

oogle Scholar references for two papers I mention in this arti-

le ( Callahan 2014; Epp and Price 2010 ) are incorrect – if I had

ot read these in the original, I would not have known that. If I

ad then referenced either article incorrectly, knowledgeable read-

rs could perceive that I was a lazy and careless author or even

orse, that I was unethical in pretending to read what I had not.

eviewers of submitted work will be familiar with the key papers

n the area and once they detect an error in someone’s work, they

ill doubt that author’s overall credibility.

.2. Identifying research gaps

It is insufficient for a good literature review to demonstrate

nowledge of existing work, it must also contribute new knowl-

dge. A literature review that generates research ideas for your

wn proposed research and for others is invaluable. Often a re-

earch student embarks on a review to identify one or more “gaps”

n knowledge for his/her own research could address. At the sim-

lest level, a gap might be viewed as something that has not been

ormally researched before. A gap might also exist because some-

hing that has been researched before needs to be re-evaluated

ecause of a significant change e.g. many aspects of information

rocessing of traditional media had to re-evaluated once digital

edia became more popular. One really useful thing to take note

f, when reviewing prior work, is a “call for future research”. This

s when the author(s) note a limitation in their own work, or prior

ork on the topic as a whole and suggest that future research

hould be done, to fill this gap. These calls can give you (and other

esearchers who read your review) future research ideas.

.3. Generating specific research questions

Most research is motivated by a general research purpose or

bserved practical problem that the researcher wants to address

e.g. reducing smoking levels among Pacific peoples). Literature re-

iews can provide justification for the importance of the overall re-

earch purpose. Even more importantly, the research gaps noted in

he review can be used to develop specific research questions for

he proposed work to answer. Asking specific research questions

hat can be answered by the proposed research are important, be-

ause reviewers and examiners will judge the finished work partly

n whether the researcher actually answered the questions they

romised to answer. For example, a paper in this journal that

imed to help reduce smoking rates among Pacific peoples ( Fifita

t al. 2015 ) could not provide a complete answer to how Pacific

eoples could be induced to stop smoking altogether. But, it could

sk (and answer) how self-construal influences the creation of a

moking-resistant identity in Tongan non-smokers compared to NZ

uropean non-smokers.

Often, novice researchers will think of something that interests

hem, do a quick search to ensure nothing academic has been pub-

ished related to it, and then expect that they no longer need to re-

iew the literature because they are proposing research on some-

hing that “has never been done before”. But, this researcher still

eeds to ask specific research questions. In this case, s/he needs

o find existing streams of research that are somewhat relevant to

heir proposed research and then review these articles, noting how

his prior work has not addressed the aspect of interest. Even bet-

er, the researcher could explain how the somewhat relevant liter-

ture they had identified could be adapted to inform the proposed

esearch. For example, when I proposed studying how people used

elephone directories (something that appeared to have not been

cademically researched at the time), I did a systematic search and

ventually found a masters’ thesis and two journal articles on the

opic. With no other academic literature to review, I reviewed the

xtensive literature on information processing of advertisements,

oting that most advertisements sought to attract potential cus-

omers with low involvement in the relevant products. After much

hought, I realized that when people use telephone directories,

hey are usually highly involved and ready to purchase. So I re-

iewed, adapted and applied the prior research on information

rocessing to develop hypotheses that attempted to explain how

ighly involved consumers would process advertising information

Fernandez and Rosen 20 0 0 ). There are also some researchers who

mulate the classical anthropologists in doing “grounded theory,”

nd thus believe that since they have to approach their topic with

pen minds, they do not have to review the literature before em-

arking on their data collection. However, “an open mind is not an

mpty mind” ( Belk 2001 ). Researchers really do have to know what

as been done before they can add to the sum of that knowledge

n a meaningful way.

.4. Positioning research

Fields and subfields of research, as well as specific journals

re interested in discipline-specific issues that can, and do change,

ver time. Just like a group of friends may discuss the latest rugby

atch in Rugby World Cup season, but then turn to a discussion of

he latest cricket match in Cricket Test season, authors of articles

n a journal engage in different “conversations” that change over

ime. So, when planning a thesis or an article, a research student

as to decide (and then clearly demonstrate) which conversation(s)

/he wants to join. Reviewing the literature exposes the research

tudent to the various current problems and issues and more im-

ortantly, the ongoing debates in their area. This may then suggest

o them which discussion(s) they want to join, and which jour-

al(s) might be suitable outlets for their work (since those journals

re currently interested in those discussions). To clearly establish

hich conversation is being joined and extended, researchers need

o know what has already been done, what is wrong with what

as already been done, and how they are contributing to what

as been done – this is called “positioning” one’s work with re-

pect to prior literature. One simply cannot do this properly, if one

oes not have a good picture of the prior literature that is relevant

o the work being positioned. If a review of prior work has un-

overed a “call” to answer the question you are trying to answer,

hese authors also be cited when doing one’s own empirical work

y promising to “research the influence of x on y in answer to the

all by A to do so.”

.5. Developing theory

Theory development relies on the literature in different ways,

epending on the paradigmatic perspective underpinning the re-

earch being carried out. The knowledge the authors gain from do-

ng their literature reviews will help researchers working within

uantitative paradigms (e.g. positivists planning experimental de-

igns) develop the hypotheses that they intend to test. Researchers

orking within qualitative paradigms (e.g. consumer culture theo-

ists interpreting ethnographic data), blend the literature with the

ata as it is interpreted, to develop new theory within their find-

ngs sections. Moreover, irrespective of research paradigm, a deep

amiliarity with the literature is essential when drawing out im-

lications of the research in the discussion section and answering

he all-important question of how the new work informs, extends

r even changes what is already known about the focal concept(s),

elationships and/or issues. Having discussed the five outcomes of

good literature review, I will now provide practical guidance on

ow to actually conduct the review.

190 K.V. Fernandez / Australasian Marketing Journal 27 (2019) 187–196

Fig. 1. The literature review puzzle.

i

o

t

i

o

A

t

O

t

i

a

fi

k

a

f

w

a

w

a

i

G

l

A

l

a

u

u

i

m

w

G

i

F

g

M

S

h

g

e

r

(

w

a

o

t

A

o

w

e

a

a

s

v

w

p

o

t

m

r

r

u

T

f

v

3. The stages and steps of a literature review

As mentioned earlier, it is important that literature reviews

should be guided by a stated, specific questions ( Briner and Denyer

2012; Callahan 2014; Torraco 2005 ) because doing so will assist re-

searchers as they consider important decisions that will influence

how they undertake their review . Fig. 1 depicts the three sequen-

tial stages of a literature review – the literature being reviewed

has to be (1) assembled, (2) arranged and (3) assessed. The model

presents the three stages as a linear process for simplicity of ex-

planation. However, in reality, the process may involve re-working

earlier stages later in the process. For instance, an article (e.g. that

provided a cross-cultural comparison of extended self) that was

initially deemed unimportant in the Assembling stage may become

significant later in the Assessing stage (e.g. which uncovered the

weakness that most empirical comparisons of extended self were

situated within a single culture). In that case, that particular article

(and related articles) would require close re-reading. Furthermore,

each stage consists of two interrelated steps. The first stage (As-

semble) involves the two steps of identifying, and finding relevant

literature. These two steps are interrelated since an article once

found and read will likely lead to the identification of other rele-

vant articles. Next, the second stage of (Arrange) involves the steps

of organizing and summarizing the literature. These two steps are

also interrelated since the way the material found is organized

both reveals and influences the sub-categories of the material to

be summarized. Finally, the third stage (Assess) involves the two

interrelated steps of evaluating the literature and discovering re-

search opportunities.

3.1. Assembling the literature to review

This first stage of reviewing the literature involves identifying

(finding) and then actually obtaining (retrieving) the articles that

were identified. As the following discussion will show, the two

steps of assembling - identifying and obtaining prior research - are

also closely interrelated.

3.1.1. Identifying the literature

A good place for research students to start identifying articles

are in the relevant readings in courses they have taken, or other

papers that they have found very interesting. A search tactic com-

monly used by research students next, is to look up relevant ar-

ticles that have been cited by the authors of the key articles they

have already found. This is not wrong, but remember, this will only

lead a researcher backwards to prior work, rather than to forwards

to subsequent work.

Most researchers also do a Google Scholar TM search and/or

search other relevant electronic databases in their institution’s li-

brary system (e.g. ABI-Inform). A key decision involves settling on

keywords – the words that best describe the proposed work (e.g.

“smoking” “cessation” and “Pacific”). These key words will help re-

searchers select search terms and phrases that can be used to re-

trieve appropriate articles, books, and reports from databases. An

nitial scoping review might use only general search terms based

n the key words that initially framed the research question for

he review e.g. a scoping review for uncovering research on smok-

ng cessation in New Zealand might use “smoking” or “cessation”

r even more specifically, the search phrase “smoking cessation”

ND “Zealand”). However, once a more systematic review is under-

aken, the search terms might include “self construal AND (Pacific

R Tongan OR Zealand”). There is a particular grammar and logic

hat must be used to search various online data sources, and it is

mportant to understand and utilize the search conventions that

re appropriate for each database being used ( Denyer and Tran-

eld 2009 ). Importantly, using key phrases instead of individual

ey words will often result in generating a smaller, more manage-

ble, number of articles that, at the same time, are more closely

ocused on the research question.

A researcher can also look up the authors of major articles see

hat else they may have published later on the same topic. For ex-

mple, if a researcher clicked on the “cited by” link in Fig. 2 , they

ould be taken to subsequent articles that have cited the original

rticle. Researchers can also click on one of the underlined names

n the article listing shown in Fig. 2 to be directed to that author’s

oogle Profile, which should list all the articles they have pub-

ished before, and after, the article s/he was initially interested in.

nother handy hint is that many academics have web-pages with

ists of their articles and sometimes, direct links to some of these

rticles or even unpublished working papers. Researchers should

se Google TM (not Google Scholar TM since they are searching for

npublished work) to search for the authors of key articles to see

f they might have material which might be useful. Researchers

ay also find it useful to create accounts on academic social net-

orks such as Academia.Edu ( www.academia.edu ) and Research-

ate ( www.researchgate.net ) so they can follow authors they are

nterested in. Researchers may also want to investigate if there are

acebook groups in their areas of interest that they can join. These

roups, such as the Consumer Culture Theory, GENMAC (Gender,

arkets and Consumers) and MASSIG (the Marketing & Society

pecial Interest Group of the American Marketing Association) all

ave links to upcoming conferences, forthcoming articles and en-

age in discussions that may be of interest.

Some scholars search for relevant key words AND the term “lit-

rature review” to uncover previous reviews such as the excellent

eview on possession attachment conducted by Kleine and Baker

2004) . Yet, there are other excellent reviews that do not have the

ord “review” in the title or abstract (see for instance, MacInnis

nd Folkes 2017 ). Therefore, searches must be systematic and thor-

ugh. If a topic has links to psychology, sociology or anthropology,

he Annual Review of Psychology, Annual Review of Sociology and the

nnual Review of Anthropology are also useful sources of articles

n many topics. These usually offer excellent literature reviews of

hatever has been done in a particular area since the prior lit-

rature review in that same publication (usually about five years

part) by leading scholars in those areas. These annual reviews are

vailable in the print and/or online version in many libraries. A re-

earcher might wonder why I am suggesting s/he looks at older re-

iews, if s/he are writing his/her own review, since of course, s/he

ill have no intention of plagiarizing these prior reviews. First, a

rior review will quickly provide a researcher with an overview

f what has been done up to the date of that review. Secondly, if

hese reviews are relatively outdated, one may be able to just sum-

arize that review briefly and then specifically limit one’s own

eview to papers that have been published after the date of that

eview. Thirdly, these writers will often note areas that have been

nder-researched, or questions that have not yet been answered.

his will allow a subsequent reviewer of that topic to do a more

ocused search to see what has been done (since the earlier re-

iew was published) on those under-researched topics. If a leading

K.V. Fernandez / Australasian Marketing Journal 27 (2019) 187–196 191

Fig. 2. Searching Google Scholar for subsequent developments.

s

h

t

3

S

t

t

t

A

w

a

h

r

f

s

s

m

q

a

s

t

o

s

a

t

t

c

3

M

b

t

t

s

r

t

a

s

p

t

i

f

(

t

o

t

e

m

3

c

m

t

d

a

l

o

a

w

t

w

a

o

t

c

“

w

(

d

i

c

t

u

t

p

g

o

p

d

i

I

I

w

t

w

m

n

n

w

h

t

t

M

t

h

w

c

m

i

i

e

A

b

d

cholar calls (i.e. asks) for future research on a specific topic and it

as not yet been researched, this provides a very useful justifica-

ion for one’s own future research.

.1.2. Obtaining the literature identified

When clicking on the results returned by their Google

cholar TM search, researchers will find that sometimes a document

hey identified is available for direct, free download, but other

imes, they will be directed to the publisher’s site, which states

hey do not have free access and must pay to access the article.

really useful tip is to initiate Google Scholar TM searches from

ithin one’s institution’s library website. Then, when researchers

re directed to a publisher site for a journal that their institution

as already paid to access online, the publisher’s site will usually

ecognize them as being authorized to download that paper for

ree. This saves them the time it would take to go to their Library

ite later to search for, and download papers the in their search re-

ults. If research students come across citations which they think

ight be useful for their reviews but cannot obtain the articles in

uestion from their library or through interlibrary loan, they could

sk about these articles in a relevant academic Facebook group

uch as those mentioned earlier. Alternatively, they could consult

heir supervisors who might already have the article they need,

r be able to get it from the author(s) for the student. Doctoral

tudents in particular are encouraged to write to authors directly

s many scholars will be delighted that an aspiring scholar want

o read their work in the original and will graciously send it to

he student – and this contact could even help the student build a

onnection with an accomplished scholar in their area of interest.

.2. Arranging the literature that was assembled

Researchers will quickly start accumulating a lot of references.

any research students wisely choose to attend a University Li-

rary workshop to learn how to use an electronic referencing sys-

em such as RefWorks or End-Note. The time investment to learn

his skill will pay off greatly when formatting references for the-

es, and for preparing publications, throughout one’s academic ca-

eer. Nowadays, most articles have their full reference for the ar-

icle on their first pages. However, if this is not the case (e.g. for

chapter that was copied and/or scanned from a book), I strongly

uggest that researchers add this citation information on the pa-

er or e-copy of the article if at all possible, or update their elec-

ronic bibliographies with this full reference as soon as possible. It

s very easy to forget where something one found or quoted came

rom. Another handy tip is to include the authors’ full first names

rather than just their initials) in a bibliography if that is informa-

ion available. That is because some journals style guides (e.g. that

f the Journal of Consumer Research ) require that authors include

he full first names of authors (instead of just initials) in their ref-

rence lists – and it will be time consuming to retrieve this infor-

ation later.

.2.1. Organizing the literature

Researchers need to start searching for and then reading arti-

les over a long period of time, rather than leaving it to the last

inute. Even experienced researchers cannot absorb all this ma-

erial and come up with the big picture in a rush. Research stu-

ents should not be discouraged if they take a long time to read

n article. It will become easier as one becomes familiar with the

iterature and the terminology used. If one has to look up a word

r term in an article, one should write the meaning down, prefer-

bly next to the word in the article, as the exact meaning of that

ord will be forgotten a week later! As a researcher finds each ar-

icle, s/he should quickly skim the abstract to try and determine

hat aspect of the topic the article deals with. This will help with

n initial categorization of the articles found (for the researcher’s

wn use now and for future research). For example, if the topic of

he literature is “influences on the processing of visual and verbal

ues” a researcher may end up with categories like “involvement”,

affect”, “color” etc. One can then make folders on one’s computer

ith these titles to virtually organize the articles found. If a folder

e.g. involvement) grows rather large, then this folder can be sub-

ivided into sub-folders. If a paper relates to two topics, put a copy

n each folder!

Researchers might want to start reading each category of arti-

les chronologically (in order of publication date, from earlier ar-

icles to more recent ones), since logically, later work will build

pon earlier work. Experienced researchers develop different ways

o organize the ideas in the articles read. For example, some might

rint out article abstracts and physically group them into cate-

ories while others might use index cards to note the main points

f each article and then group the index cards into categories. One

ractical tip that works for me, is to create a summary table, as

epicted in Table 2 in Microsoft Word®, Microsoft Excel®, or sim-

lar software. Table 2 depicts a small part of a summary table that

made as I read the literature on the topic of Agency. Initially as

worked through a paper (e.g. Epp and Price 2010 ), on my topic I

rote down ideas from the paper that I thought might be relevant

o my review (see the 3rd column of Table 2 ). If I used the exact

ords of the authors, I put them in “inverted commas” to remind

e later that this was an exact quote that either needed the page

umber in the citation or had to be paraphrased. Readers should

otice that in Row 3, I made a point of noting that the point used

as actually a quote from Money (2007 , p.37) that Epp and Price

ad quoted on p.22 of their 2010 article. I referenced it this way

o remind myself that if I used this quote, I either needed to note

hat this was a quote that Epp and Price (2010) had made from

oney (2007) , or I needed to read Money in the original (always

he preferred strategy, rather than quoting something a researcher

as not personally read).

As I went along, I noted the reference and the page numbers

here I had found each point – this would be useful later if I in-

luded the quote in the article I hoped to write. If a thought of

y own occurred to me as I read a quote, I noted this idea in ital-

cs, to remind me it was my own thought, which I could freely

nclude in the paper. As I progressed, I started noticing some inter-

sting categories of concepts and noted these in the first column.

s categories of ideas grew, I could see that some of them could

e divided into sub-categories (see the 2nd column of Table 2 ).

Naturally, the final table of 43 landscape pages became quite

ifficult to work with, and comprehend. Not only that, I needed

192 K.V. Fernandez / Australasian Marketing Journal 27 (2019) 187–196

Table 2

Article summary matrix – Initial stage (unsorted).

Concept Sub-Cat Idea/Quote/Comment Ref Section/

Story

Used

Home Justify context “Just as the historicity of the home can impose constraints to action (Miller

2001), we suggest that the forces that empower and constrain an object’s

agency-activated by the interplay of identity practices, objects and spaces-are

consequential for the biographies of singularized objects.”

Epp and Price (2010 p.822)

Home Justify context A growing social science literature focuses on the domestic space as a context

to explore the nature of “relationships between people and material culture”

Money (2007 , p.357) in Epp

and Price (2010 p.822)

Method Follow up

interview

“Between the first set of interviews and the second set of interviews, the

family moved to a new house, making identity issues salient ( Otnes et al.

2014 ; Schouten 1991)” So life AND spatial transitions make identity issues salient

Epp and Price (2010 p.823)

Gap Safety of Home “in comparison to other families, the Eriksons underscore the importance of

clear boundaries around their family and protection from outside influences

that may conflict with the family’s values and beliefs (“The outside might beat

you up; school will beat you up; but you come home and it is safe”).”

Epp and Price (2010 p.824)

Table 3

Article summary matrix – Final stage (sorted).

Concept Sub-Cat Idea/Quote/Comment Ref Section/

Story

Used

Agency Ancestor Ancestors have agency/are agents – Munn (1971)- p.57 Miller 1987

Agency Def Agency is the socio-culturally mediated capacity to act and… may include

spirits, machines, signs, and collective entities (ancestors, corporations,

social groups) [& socio-culturally mediated means that the degree of

freedom that a human has, to act, varies considerably in different settings

and societies – see- Knappett & Malafouris 2008 ]

Ahearn 2001 , p.110 in

Hoskins

Intro Part

Agency Def Agency is the capacity of individuals to act independently and to make

their own free choices.

Barker 2005 in wiki

Agency Def The intentional causal intervention in the world, subject to the possibility

of a reflexive monitoring of that intervention

Bhaskar 1989 in Ratner

20 0 0

Agency Def ‘traditionally agency refers to the ability to act, and this typically involves

intention”

Borgerson (2013) p.131

Agency Def “In his [ Belk 1989 ] understanding, “agency” presumes acting upon objects,

and through agency “objects can become part of the extended self (p.130).

Whereas this definition of consumer agency implies a control over things ,

Belk insists, moreover, that a kind of agency on the part of objects, a kind

of control by things also results in feelings of merged identity with objects

(p.130).” consistent with Fernandez & Lastovicka 2011

Borgerson 2005 ACR p.430

Discussion

√

Table 4

Literature review category planning matrix.

Category Basic articles Involvement & X Ability & X

Visual ad cues A, B B , D

Verbal ad cues B , C B, E, F G

v

t

b

t

T

v

t

(

o

3

l

w

t

u

d

i

e

a

c

n

to find a way to avoid the temptation to talk about one paper at

a time (since I did not want to end up with a list of summaries

of individual articles)! So next, I sorted the table by category and

then by sub-category so that remarks about a single aspect or is-

sue would be grouped together. A portion of this post-sorted final

summary table is presented as Table 3 .

The first row in my sorted summary table dealt with the

“Agency (of) Ancestors and was followed by three pages of rows

dealing with the definition of Agency. Thus, this was a big hint

to me that the meaning and definition of Agency is a key issue

in the prior literature on Agency that I had to include in my re-

view. A close perusal of this table also shows how I highlighted

any text that I had used when writing up my review. This helped

me to avoid quoting the same words twice, thus avoiding re-

viewer/examiner complaints that my writing was repetitious. The

table also shows how the final two columns were used later, to

keep track of whether I used an idea in whole or in part, and

which sections of the paper the idea was used in. (If I were to

use this table to write more than one paper, I would simply use

a different highlight color for each paper). As noted earlier, this is

just one way of keeping track of the ideas found and used.

As a researcher starts to get ideas about what issues are im-

portant in the literature being read, s/he will want to keep track

of which papers wrote on each issue. As the researcher organizes

that material read into sub-topics, s/he should also be alert to dif-

ferent ways of organizing the material. There is no single right way

to do this, which is why researchers have the opportunity to make

contributions by making creative choices. One practical approach

to working on this categorization task is to create a Literature Re-

iew Planning Matrix as shown in Table 4 . The folder system on

he researcher’s computer can be re-organized to reflect this ta-

le as it takes shape. The table may also give hints regarding ideas

he researcher can add to the review. For example, the (fictional)

able 4 could indicate that Article “B” is a key article for the re-

iew/topic being researched (and thus should be given special at-

ention in the analysis and writing) and that there are, possibly, no

or not many) articles on the influence of ability on the processing

f visual cues.

.2.2. Summarizing the literature

As mentioned earlier, a literature review should not include

ong lists of mini-summaries of individual articles. However, it

ould not be very useful to just talk generally about ALL the ar-

icles on a topic at once, either (e.g. “this body of work has largely

tilized experimental design”). So in practice, I suggest researchers

o something in between- after the articles have been grouped

nto meaningful categories, researchers could then write about

ach category separately, before making more general comments

bout the entire set of articles. How then, to decide what these

ategories should be? It is not recommended that researchers orga-

ize their reviews by author ( Webster and Watson 2002 ). Instead,

K.V. Fernandez / Australasian Marketing Journal 27 (2019) 187–196 193

Example of an Introduction

Who has not seen an advertisement featuring someone famous? Businesses competing in todays cluttered media environments are increasingly using celebrities - individuals who receive public recognition (McCracken 1989) to endorse their products (Erdogan, Baker and Tagg, 2000). Celebrity endorsers can be expensive, accounting for 10% of advertising expenditure (Till, Stanley and Priluck 2008). Clearly, marketers need to understand how, why and when to use celebrity endorsers. Consequently, this literature review will delve into this body of literature, covering the following issues: defining celebrity, selecting celebrity, outcomes of celebrity endorsements, and cross-cultural comparisons of celebrity endorsements. Since a literature review was conducted on celebrity endorsement by Erdogen in 1999, this paper will only evaluate the literature from the year 2000 onwards.

Fig. 3. Example of an introduction.

a

o

o

i

m

3

a

m

r

–

q

t

I

i

t

i

f

3

v

e

o

l

e

t

w

i

b

a

i

n

s

r

w

d

t

a

s

n

r

a

3

a

c

i

m

f

n

t

d

s

e

c

t

t

t

c

t

i

o

t

k

t

4

t

t

r

4

r

o

o

b

d

t

c

c

n

p

o

c

t

t

t

r

t

c

p

literature review for an empirical article or for a thesis is usually

rganized by concept. However, a literature review on a topic that

ne is trying to publish in its own right could be organized by the

ssues uncovered in that review e.g. definitional issues, measure-

ent issues and so on.

.3. Assessing the literature that was arranged

With sufficient time and effort, most research students are

ble to assemble (identify and obtain) and then arrange (sum-

arize and organize) the literature. However, even experienced

esearchers often struggle with the third and most difficult stage

assessing the literature. This involves evaluating (judging the

uality and value of) the literature and discovering (finding some-

hing for the first time) opportunities to contribute to it. Earlier,

made the point that identifying and obtaining the literature are

nterrelated steps, as are the steps of organizing and summarizing

he literature. Similarly, the step of evaluating the literature is

nterrelated with the step of discovering new opportunities for

uture research.

.3.1. Evaluating the literature

Evaluating literature involves judging the quality of each indi-

idual article/book to make overall judgements about the value of

ach sub-set of the literature; as well as noting the importance

f the area in general. As a researcher evaluates each article col-

ected, s/he can ask and answer questions about the nature of the

mpirical work involved. For example, is a paper purely concep-

ual (no new empirical data was collected? If data, was collected,

as it framed within a quantitative or qualitative paradigm? This

s important because the quality of empirical work must be judged

y the standards and criteria appropriate to its paradigm. For ex-

mple, to judge an interpretive study with 24 interviews as hav-

ng too small a data set would reveal a lack of knowledge of the

orms of qualitative research. A researcher would also look at sub-

ets of the material collected to decide if any important issues

emain unresolved, or if inconsistencies exist. For example, one

ould look across the articles to see if the key concept has been

efined clearly, completely and consistently. For empirical quanti-

ative work, one could see if important concepts been measured

nd/or manipulated appropriately (given the context and the re-

earch paradigm) and consistently across papers. It is important to

ote here that “critical” does not mean only being negative – the

esearcher should point out the positive aspects of a body of work

s well as its shortcomings.

.3.2. Discovering possibilities

As evaluating the literature progresses, the researcher should be

lert to discovering possibilities for future research. Research ideas

an also be found by looking for inconsistencies and controversies

n prior research. Does all the research define, manipulate and/or

easure the key concept in the same way? If any inconsistencies

ound have not yet been resolved, then there may be an opportu-

ity for future research to resolve it. I say “may” because some-

imes something has not yet been resolved because it is (still) too

ifficult, expensive or impractical to do so. For example, if the sub-

et of articles looking at one type of empirical relationship (e.g. the

ffect of x on the relationship between y and z) have mixed (in-

onsistent) findings, there might be the opportunity to understand

he differences between the two groups of findings, or to resolve

he inconsistencies empirically. Another common issue might be

hat prior work has only been carried out in a particular cultural

ontext. Could the context thus have influenced the findings? Thus

here is the potential for cross-cultural research to examine if this

s the case. If the researcher uncovers controversy on any aspect

f the topic, they should consider if it could be resolved by fu-

ure work. Sometimes, a researcher might be able to suggest that

nowledge in one area could be applied to another area, or that

he current work be extended by looking at other contexts.

. Writing the literature review

Once a literature review has been conducted, it has to be writ-

en up for the target audience. This next section will offer some

ips on writing the introduction and structuring the body of the

eview.

.1. Introducing the literature review

The introductory section of a literature review should grab the

eader’s interest (while quickly showing familiarity with a number

f relevant prior articles on the topic). A common mistake is to

mit providing a definition of the key concept as soon as possi-

le. Often, the researcher may find that they wish to discuss the

efinition of the concept in detail, as one of the sub-sections of

he review. This might be because the term has not been defined

onsistently, or the researcher wants to show how the definition

hanged over time. While this is not wrong, the researcher should

ot skip providing a definition in the introduction. They should

rovide a working definition (perhaps the most commonly used

ne, or the one the researcher has concluded at the end of their

onsideration of the literature to be the best one), and state that

his definition will be discussed later in the review. The introduc-

ion should also explain why the topic being reviewed is impor-

ant and interesting to consider. It should conclude by telling the

eader what the rest of the review will cover. Importantly, the in-

roduction will also make clear what will not be covered – this is

alled setting the boundaries of the review. The introduction exam-

le in Fig. 3 was adapted from a student literature review. It starts

194 K.V. Fernandez / Australasian Marketing Journal 27 (2019) 187–196

Summary Statements

Consumer researchers have devoted considerable study to possession attachment— consumers’ bonding with psychologically appropriated material objects (Kleine and Baker 2004). Key among these studies is Belk’s (1988) seminal conceptualization of the extended self, the people, possessions and places a person is most emotionally attached to (Belk 1989). Prior empirical work on the extended self has mainly concerned itself with how personal possessions create (Fernandez and Lastovicka 2011), express (Tian and Belk 2005) and memorialize (Mehta and Belk 1991; Noble and Walker 1997) one’s identity. More recent work investigates how extended self influences sharing (Karanika and Hogg 2016) and responsible consumption (Kunchamboo, Lee and Brace-Govan 2017).

Fig. 4. Summary statements.

Article

Type of past

R ec

en t p

as t

D is

ta nt

p as

t

Consumption focus Main themes

O bj

ec ts

E xp

er ie

nc es

Id en

tit y

A ut

he nt

ic ity

Se ns

e of

be lo

ng in

g an

d

co m

m un

ity

C on

tin ui

ty a

nd

Veridical

A lte

rn at

iv e

Fa nt

as tic

Pe rs

on al

Fa m

ili al

C ul

tu ra

l

Holbrook & Schindler

(2003) Baker,

Motley, & Henderson

(2004) Curasi, Price,

& Arnould (2004)

Hunt (2004)

Ahuvia (2005)

Wilhelm & Mottner (2005)

Hannam & Halewood

(2006) Carnegie &

McCabe (2008)

Chronis & Hampton

(2008)

Gapps (2009)

Schau, Gilly, &

Wolfinbarger (2009)

Russell & Levy (2012)

J. Choi (2013), “Retroconsumpion” Unpublished Honours Dissertation, University of Auckland

Fig. 5. Conveying a lot of information efficiently.

F

i

a

T

s

t

l

o

R

i

a

t

t

with a statement that makes the topic seem interesting. The sec-

ond sentence includes a definition of the key term (celebrity) while

the third and fourth sentences explain why the topic is worthy

of study from a practical and a theoretical standpoint. Finally, the

introduction concludes by setting the boundaries of the review -

listing what will be covered by the review and what will be ex-

cluded (and why).

4.2. Structuring the body of the literature review

The material to go into the literature review first has to be or-

ganized into categories. A useful technique to ensure one writes

about categories of papers as a group, rather than about each pa-

per individually, is to use what I term a “summary statement”.

ig. 4 contains examples of summary statements. The first sentence

n Fig. 4 situates the key construct (extended self) within the larger

rea of possession attachment and defines possession attachment.

he second sentence defines extended self. It is followed with two

ummary statements that quickly (and very briefly) establish that

he author is familiar with key examples of classic and recent prior

iterature on extended self.

As mentioned earlier, new researchers often make the mistake

f spending several paragraphs summarizing one particular article.

eaders are interested in the big picture more than every tiny find-

ng in each article in the area. The only time that it is appropri-

te to give a lot of detail about one article, is when that article is

he one (or at most, two) article(s) that is/are absolutely crucial to

he dissertation, thesis or paper that the researcher is writing. A

K.V. Fernandez / Australasian Marketing Journal 27 (2019) 187–196 195

Fig. 6. Using tables to present organized categories.

c

a

i

g

i

t

r

t

h

b

t

a

F

t

b

i

i

w

t

i

t

p

o

a

b

i

t

g

o

t

n

5

b

s

s

M

r

a

u

c

o

g

fi

s

w

f

m

A

i

T

t

C

M

f

t

R

A A

B

B

B

B

C

C

D

E

F

F

ommon pitfall is to not use language that makes it clear that

statement made is actually critically evaluating the work be-

ng mentioned (noting whether some aspect of the literature is

ood or bad) rather than just describing it. For example, us-

ng words like “unfortunately” or “providentially” make it clear

hat the writer thinks something is a strength or a weakness,

espectively.

It is understandable that a research student may find it frus-

rating to have to leave out so many of the references that s/he

as read. Particularly when completing a thesis, the student might

e keen to demonstrate the extent of their work. One useful tactic

hat students can utilize, is to present some of their references in

table that shows which source materials addressed which issues.

ig. 5 presents an example of this technique. Please note however,

hat every citation included in every figure or table would have to

e included in the reference list, even if not specifically mentioned

n the body of the thesis.

Once the categories have been decided on, they have to be put

nto a logical sequence. This logical sequence is what we mean

hen we talk about the “structure” of the literature review. Of-

en the earliest category is the “definition” of the key concept of

nterest. You could also organize some of the literature according

o the contexts that were used to collect the data. For example, a

aper on Advertising to Children could use “children’s advertising

n television”, “children’s print advertising” and “ethical concerns”

s sub-headings. Another way of organizing the literature might

e to give a historical perspective of the development of literature

n the area. Often a table or a figure can be used, to convey how

he material has been organized into categories, and how the cate-

ories relate to one another. For example, Fig. 6 demonstrates how

ne research student effectively demonstrated her organization of

he material she had found, when reviewing the literature on

ostalgia.

. Discussion and conclusion

To sum up, conducting a literature review involves (1) assem-

ling (identifying and obtaining), (2) arranging (organizing and

ummarizing), and (3) assessing (evaluating and discovering re-

earch opportunities in) the existing knowledge about a topic.

ost research students are eventually able to assemble and ar-

ange the literature that they have read quite well, to produce

systematic review of the literature. However, research students

sually find the task of critically evaluating the literature far more

hallenging. This article has explained the nature, purposes and

utcomes of a high quality literature review. Practical tips, sug-

estions and examples were provided to assist with the tasks of

rst doing the literature review and then writing it up. Although

pace limitations precluded a complete coverage of every aspect of

riting literature reviews, it is hoped that research students have

ound some useful ideas to help them get started on the road to

astering this critical skill.

cknowledgement

This research did not receive any specific grant from fund-

ng agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

he author gratefully acknowledges the anonymous reviewers,

he Marketing departments of the University of Auckland, Edith

owan University, the University of Melbourne, Monash University-

alaysia, the University of Otago and the University of Queensland

or hosting her researcher-development workshops and to the par-

icipants who provided feedback to improve them.

eferences

hearn, L.M. , 2001. Language and agency. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 30, 109–137 . lpert, F. , Kamins, M.A. , 2004. Doctoral coursework is needed in Australasia. Aus-

tralas. Mark. J. 12 (1), 66–82 . elk, R.W. , 1989. Extended self and extending paradigmatic perspective. J. Consum.

Res. 16 (1), 129–132 . elk, R.W. , 2001. Research Colloquium on Multi Methods & Multi Perspectives in

Marketing & Consumer Research. Monash University, Melbourne .

orgerson, J.L. , 2005. Materiality, agency, and the constitution of consuming sub- jects: Insights for consumer research. In: Menon, G., Rao, A.K. (Eds.), Advances

in Consumer Research, 32, pp. 439–443 . riner, R. , Denyer, D. , 2012. Systematic review and evidence synthesis as a prac-

tice and scholarship tool. In: Rousseau, D.M. (Ed.), Handbook of Evidence-Based Management: Companies, Classrooms and Research. New York University Press,

New York .

allahan, J.L. , 2010. Constructing a manuscript: Distinguishing integrative literature reviews and conceptual and theory articles. Hum. Resour. Dev. Rev. 9 (3),

300–304 . allahan, J.L. , 2014. Writing literature reviews: a reprise and update. Hum. Resour.

Dev. Rev. 13 (3), 271–275 . enyer, D. , Tranfield, D. , 2009. Producing a systematic review. In: Buchanan, D.A.,

Bryman, A. (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of Organizational Research Methods. Sage, Los Angeles, pp. 671–689 .

pp, A.M. , Price, L.L. , 2010. The storied life of singularized objects: forces of agency

and network transformation. J. Consum. Res. 36 (5), 820–837 . ernandez, K.V. , Rosen, D.L. , 20 0 0. The effectiveness of information and color in yel-

low pages advertising. J. Advert. 29 (2), 61–73 . ernandez, K.V. , Lastovicka, J.L. , 2011. Making magic: Fetishes in contemporary con-

sumption. J. Consum. Res. 38 (2), 278–299 .

196 K.V. Fernandez / Australasian Marketing Journal 27 (2019) 187–196

P

R

S

T

U

W

Fifita, I.M. , Smith, S.D. , Fernandez, K.V. , 2015. The role of self-construal in resisting tobacco smoking. Australas. Mark. J. (AMJ) 23 (4), 294–302 .

Kleine, S.S. , Baker, S.M. , 2004. An integrative review of material possession attach- ment. Acad. Mark. Sci. Rev. 1 (1), 1–39 .

Knappett, C. , Malafouris, L. , 2008. Material and nonhuman agency: An introduction. In: Knappett, C., Malafouris, L. (Eds.), Material Agency. Springer, NY, pp. i–xix .

MacInnis, D.J. , Folkes, V.S. , 2017. Humanizing brands: when brands seem to be like me, part of me, and in a relationship with me. J. Consum. Psychol. 27 (3),

355–374 .

Miller, D. , 1987. Material culture and mass consumption . Money, A. , 2007. Material culture and the living room: The appropriation and use

of goods in everyday life. J. Consum. Cult. 7 (3), 355–377 . Otnes, C.C. , Ruth, J.A. , Marie Crosby, E. , 2014. Product-agency benefits: Con-

sumer perspectives and strategic implications. Eur. J. Marketing 48 (5/6), 878– 898 .

inson, C. , 2008. Some observations and advice from the outgoing Editor. Rech. et Appl. en Mark. 23 (4), 1–5 .

euber, R. , 2010. Strengthening your literature review. Fam. Bus. Rev. 23 (2), 105–108 .

nugg, E. , Jevons, C. , 2018. Reconceptualising the scholarship of marketing edua- tion – SoME futurescapes. Australas. Mark. J. 26, 180–186 .

ranfield, D. , Denyer, D. , Smart, P. , 2003. Towards a methodology for developing ev- idence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. Br. J.

Manag. 14 (3), 207–222 .

Torraco, R.J. , 2005. Writing integrative literature reviews: guidelines and examples. Hum. Resour. Dev. Rev. 4 (3), 356–367 .

ncles, M. , 2018. Directions in higher education. A marketing perspective. Australas. Mark. J. 26, 187–193 .

ebster, J. , Watson, R.J. , 2002. Analyzing the past to prepare for the future: writing a literature review. MIS Q. 26 (2), xiii–xxiii .