(peer-reviewed) article

1.

Create a

common

preface

or header to place at the top of all your

deconstructions, briefly describing

the nature and purpose of the deconstruction

s for your personal use

and (perhaps) that of colleagues

.

2.

A full

citation

of the article, with no abbreviations of journal names, etc.

3.

Keywords

that specify, at a minimum, the problem of practice and the main theory of the piece of

literature.

4.

Who should read this article and

why.

a.

Types of

decision

-

makers

who would benefit from reading the review

–

exactly which

scholarly practitioners and practical academics?

b.

The

problem(s) of practice

–

the managerial decisions/problems/opportunities on which the

source piece of literature o

ffers potential insights.

c.

The main

theory and how close or far

it is from the particular managerial context in which it

was studied (i.e., emic or etic, concept

-

near or concept

-

far; level of abstraction).

d.

Reasons why

you,

the deconstruction’s author

,

chose

this article as relevant to own research

domain, in competition with other

pieces of scholarly literature.

5.

Methods

a.

Type of literature

–

Empirical

-

Qualitative, Empirical

-

Quantitative, Conceptual (theoretical),

Review of Research

-

Systematic, Review of Res

earch

-

Literary.

b.

If empirical,

i.

the

setting

and sample of the study.

ii.

Nature of

data collected

iii.

Method of

data analysis

iv.

An assessment of the study’s

rigor

, based on its methods and the journal in which it

was published.

c.

If not empirical, a short description o

f the piece’s basic approach that indicates how it

achieves scholarly rigor.

d.

A methodological aspect of the piece of literature that

you desire

to

emulate or avoid

in their

own work.

6.

Conceptual Framework

a.

The

research question

of the study.

b.

A description o

f the piece’s

key concepts and

how they are brought together into a

framework

. (The deconstruction’s author should look up 3 or 4 key cited works in order to

properly describe the main concepts.

See # 10 below.

) The main proposition or hypothesis,

if a

ny, proposed by the author.

c.

A

deconstruction

(not simply an assessment)

of the author’s logic

and line of argument in

creating the conceptual framework, including stylistic devices intended to persuade the

reader.

7.

Findings

–

A description of the main/sele

cted findings

and discussion of their potential application to

your own research interests.

8.

Caveats

about the applications

to practice claimed by the author

–

for instance, ability of the findings

to be generalized or ability of the concepts to travel to

other contexts, or doubts about some aspect of

the piece’s rigor.

9.

The piece’s published (scholarly) abstract, if one is available.

10.

Review 3 key pieces of literature cited in this study that you intend to pursue for your own research.

1. Create a common preface or header to place at the top of all your deconstructions, briefly describing

the nature and purpose of the deconstructions for your personal use and (perhaps) that of colleagues.

2. A full citation of the article, with no abbreviations of journal names, etc.

3. Keywords that specify, at a minimum, the problem of practice and the main theory of the piece of

literature.

4. Who should read this article and why.

a. Types of decision-makers who would benefit from reading the review – exactly which

scholarly practitioners and practical academics?

b. The problem(s) of practice – the managerial decisions/problems/opportunities on which the

source piece of literature offers potential insights.

c. The main theory and how close or far it is from the particular managerial context in which it

was studied (i.e., emic or etic, concept-near or concept-far; level of abstraction).

d. Reasons why you, the deconstruction’s author, chose this article as relevant to own research

domain, in competition with other pieces of scholarly literature.

5. Methods

a. Type of literature – Empirical-Qualitative, Empirical-Quantitative, Conceptual (theoretical),

Review of Research-Systematic, Review of Research-Literary.

b. If empirical,

i. the setting and sample of the study.

ii. Nature of data collected

iii. Method of data analysis

iv. An assessment of the study’s rigor, based on its methods and the journal in which it

was published.

c. If not empirical, a short description of the piece’s basic approach that indicates how it

achieves scholarly rigor.

d. A methodological aspect of the piece of literature that you desire to emulate or avoid in their

own work.

6. Conceptual Framework

a. The research question of the study.

b. A description of the piece’s key concepts and how they are brought together into a

framework. (The deconstruction’s author should look up 3 or 4 key cited works in order to

properly describe the main concepts. See # 10 below.) The main proposition or hypothesis,

if any, proposed by the author.

c. A deconstruction (not simply an assessment) of the author’s logic and line of argument in

creating the conceptual framework, including stylistic devices intended to persuade the

reader.

7. Findings – A description of the main/selected findings and discussion of their potential application to

your own research interests.

8. Caveats about the applications to practice claimed by the author – for instance, ability of the findings

to be generalized or ability of the concepts to travel to other contexts, or doubts about some aspect of

the piece’s rigor.

9. The piece’s published (scholarly) abstract, if one is available.

10. Review 3 key pieces of literature cited in this study that you intend to pursue for your own research.