Erbil Polytechnic University

Technical Engineering College

Information System Engineering Department

Literature Review as a Research

Methodology: An overview and guidelines

Prepared by:
Chnar Mustafa Moahmmed
Chnar.mustafa@epu.edu.iq
M.Sc. student

Supervised by:
Assist. Prof. Dr. Ahmed Mohammed Adham
Head of Mechanical and Energy Engineering
Department
ahmed.adham@epu.edu.iq

2020-2021
Abstract
A literature review plays an important role in research papers. It is a study of
academic references on a single subject. It offers an analysis of current
understanding, helping you to recognize applicable hypotheses, approaches, and
gaps in established science. Writing a literature review includes identifying
applicable publications (such as books and journal articles), objectively reviewing
them, and describing what you have discovered. In general, there are six main
steps: the search for the appropriate literature, the review of the references, identify
trends, debates, and gaps, and outline the framework. The systematic analysis of
the literature review is an important ability that is used in the research profession.
This contradicts the mechanisms used in systematic and critical literature reviews
for knowledge demonstration, research ideas and questions define, research role,
and hypothesis creation. Most literature reviews are either inadequate, excessively
detailed, or insufficiently selective. The purpose is not to repeat everything that the
author has read or all the things written on the subject but to (critically) evaluate
studies that will encourage us to go a step higher and finding missing gaps as well
as to enhance the review papers. This paper will demonstrate the most important
steps and process of reviewing papers and how to re-write others' work in your
way, also six methods are identified and proposed in detail then results are
discussed and compared among methods.

Keywords: A literature review, Research Methodology, Methods of Review

Process.

2
 1. Introduction

In all studies, the literature review is a significant consideration as well as it is an

assessment that usually includes an outline, explanation, and a critical appraisal of
past study, obstacle or difficulty current research and recognizes or set up new
research issues and encouraging research questions available data (Boell and
Cecez-Kecmanovic, 2015). It is a collection of accessible (both published and
unpublished) theme documents that contain facts, concepts, data, and evidence
published from a particular viewpoint to obtain or express those viewpoints on the
subject's nature and how it should be examined, and effective review of the
research papers involved (Templier and Paré, 2015).
From the prior studies of other authors, we can analyze and define the literature
review based on their researches.
(Bandara et al., 2011) proposed that any academic research is a matter of a study of
previous findings. A detailed review of a particular scientific literature region is
important for defining and identifying study problems to explain the future study in
that field. While (Torres-Carrión et al., 2018) demonstrated that the study of
literature reviews is carried out for a number of uses. These include having a
theoretical framework for further study, learning the scope of research on a subject
of interest, or addressing practical questions through the experience of current
literature on the subject would be indicated. Such as, research reviews are most
frequently written as an introductory section of an essay that focuses on a
particular research study or as one of the early parts of an analytical thesis or
dissertation. However, (Okoli and Schabram, 2010) studies showed there is another
form of literature review that represents an original and useful piece of study in
and of itself. It offers a solid starting point for all those participants who are

3
involved in a specific subject instead of having a basis for the researchers
themselves. In (Feddes and Gallucci, 2015) paper said the foundation block of all
scholarly study practices, irrespective of specialty, is the combination of analysis
and current practice. Precisely, however, all university students should have
priority. Although, this mission has become ever more difficult. In the field of
market analysis, knowledge production is accelerating at an enormous pace, while
being decentralized and interdisciplinary, this makes it difficult to maintain and
remain at the forefront of state-of-the-art research as well as the appraisal of shared
evidence in a given area of study. It is also more necessary than ever to study
literature as a method for science. (Snyder, 2019) in his paper, stated a literature
review should generally be considered to be a more or less systemic method of
collecting and synthesizing prior studies. It typically has an organizational pattern
in the social sciences which incorporates description and synths of the primary
references.

(Jain et al., 2018) in their study defined that a description is the revision of
essential data from the source, but a synthesis is to reorganize the knowledge so
that the process used to analyze the study issue is informed. in (Paré et al., 2015,
Zorn and Campbell, 2006)study proposed a literature review for scientists to
prevent "improving things" by encouraging them to draw on what others did.
Literature reviews allow scientists to argue that they are expanding current
expertise – improving on what already exists and filling the gaps that remain.

This paper demonstrates the literature review as a research methodology by

providing an overview of the literature review, the process, and steps of reviewing
papers, types of the process, the guidelines of the literature review, and methods
provided in detail.

4
 2. Background Theory

2.1. An Overview of the Literature Review

Not all theses are literature checked, but any writer of theses must write literature,
demonstrating how his work matches with others' work. Even if someone prefers to
write in multiple chapters about literature – rather than just one – to incorporate it
into their case, it will at this moment be beneficial to think of it as a separate entity
in your argument. This will help you determine which job you want to write about,
which work you would probably write on, and how you portray the sector in
general(Murray, 2011). Two primary types of literature review can occur. The most
well-known is the 'literature review' or the 'background section' of the study paper
or chapter. This section synthesizes current documentation and generally describes
the knowledge differences addressed in the analytical analysis (Sylvester et al.,
2013). The theoretical structure for the proposed analysis can also be provided to
help the issue, explain the analysis as a new source of information, or evaluate the
suggested research methodologies (Rowe, 2014). For all studies, prior analysis of
the related literature is crucial. Both research programs and disciplines independent
when you read a post the investigator starts with the definition of prior
investigations and a review of the fields of science to inspire the thesis purpose,
and to explain the research topic and hypotheses. This is usually referred to as
'literature analysis,' 'theoretical framework,' or 'research history' (Snyder, 2019,
Banister and Van Wee, 2015).

5
 Figure 1. An overview of Literature Review adopted from (Witell et al., 2016)

2.2. The processes and steps to start a Literature Review

The literary analysis is an on-going process, which is not sequential and iterative.
“Your review of your literature will tell your question, theory, and methods and the
criteria of your reviews will be determined by your question, theory, and methods.
There is a cyclical phase” (O'leary, 2017). It is generally one of the first and last
tasks carried out by students in postgraduate studies. A literature study written at
the beginning of the thesis will vary because it must be reviewed, revised, and
updated regularly. At various stages of your study, you would possibly interact
with the literature in various ways(Henry et al., 2013).

6
The conduct of a study paper involves six specific stages(Templier and Paré,
2015):
1. Study question(s) formulation and purpose (s).
2. Searching for the existing literature.
3. Inclusion examination.
4. Evaluation of primary research quality.
5. Data processing.
6. Data interpretation and write a summarization.

Although these phases are addressed in order, the analysis is iterative, and certain
tasks are initiated in the preparation phase. and then refined during the following
stages(Finfgeld‐Connett and Johnson, 2013).

7
 Figure 2. Process of Literature Review adopted from (Leitner et al., 2017)

1- Study question(s) formulation and purpose (s): as a starting point, the

review team should properly clarify the review itself define the key goals of
the revision (Okoli and Schabram, 2010). Importantly, the research issues
they propose to investigate must also be addressed. In this relation it is
understood that the simple study concerns of (Jesson et al., 2011)are
essential ingredients that drive the whole review methodology; they
illuminate what kind of knowledge is required, advise research, and
literature collection, and guide the subsequent analysis. Their analysis is a
guiding principle(Randolph, 2018).
2- Searching for the existing literature: The next step is to look for the
literature and settle on the suitability of the content for analysis(Paré et al.,
2015). Three primary coverage techniques are in place. Firstly,
comprehensive coverage ensures that attempts are taken to ensure that the
analysis covers all applicable articles reported and unpublished so that
findings are focused on this all-inclusive information basis. The second
category of covering involves materials indicative of most other works in a
similar field or area. Authors also look for important papers in a limited
number of top-level publications on a topic in their implementation of this
technique(Wee and Banister, 2016). The analysis team reflects on previous
activities that are key or essential to a specific subject in the third approach.
This may include observational or theoretical studies that have launched a
section, updated how challenges or problems were created.
3- Inclusion examination: The next step is to determine the applicability of the
substance in the previous step(Paré and Kitsiou, 2017). Upon finding a
8
 group of possible experiments, the evaluation team members must screen
them to assess their significance(vom Brocke et al., 2020). The basis for
adding or excluding any experiments are a variety of predestined laws. This
needs considerable research budgets, which would guarantee increased
objectivity to prevent misconceptions or errors. Any type of review should
be chosen from at least two separate examinees, and a dispute settlement
process must also be in place(Vom Brocke et al., 2015).
4- Evaluation of primary research quality: Besides the screening content or
inclusion examination, members of the review committee will need to
evaluate, i.e., assess the rigor of study design and methodology, the
analytical validity of the chosen studies. This systematic examination,
typically carried out separately by two or three coders, allows research team
participants to refine what experiments to include in the final study, to
determine whether their results may be influenced by variations invalidity,
or to help them analyze and evaluate the findings (Ioannidis et al., 2015).
Attribution of quality outcomes to and primary analysis or the consideration
of which elements were or were not adequately planned and conducted by
domain-based analyses make it possible to focus on how the study has
chosen tackles potential bias and maximizes its validity(Belcher et al.,
2016).
5- Data processing: The next step is to compile or extract relevant knowledge
on the subject of concern from each primary review in the survey (Cheung
and Vijayakumar, 2016). In reality, the form of data to be reported depends
mainly on the initial research issues. Even so, They may also provide useful
information on nature and methods or qualitative/quantitative findings as to

9
 how, when, where, and by whom the primary analysis was conducted
(Schmidt, 2017).
6- Data interpretation and write a summarization: The final step is to
gather, summarize, collect, arrange, and compare data from the studies used.
The derived data must be sent with significance to indicate a new update to
existing literature (Jesson et al., 2011, Witell et al., 2016). As informed
scientists that literature reviews can be something more than collections of
articles and offer a clear prism with which to make sense of current
information on a specific issue. There are many quantitative (e.g. frequency
analysis, meta-analysis) and qualitative (e.g. field theory, plot analysis,
meta-ethnography) proof and syncretization approaches and techniques
accessible to search and write the final draft of literature(Bandara et al.,
2015).

3. Types and Guidelines for conducting a literature review

While literature reviews can be categorized in various ways. Each type of study
should comply with clear methodological criteria that contribute to its overall
purpose. "Transparency on the aspects of reviews offers a way for more
development of methods of review and critical assessments for designing,
producing, assessing, and utilizing reviews(Okoli and Schabram, 2010). The
creation of a synthesis of research requires many decisions that must relate to the
basic goal and the main objective of the analysis. Each analysis style is also better
suited to certain goals, issues, or concerns along with an adapted set of
methodological guidelines and techniques. Researchers typically agree that the
development of science depends heavily on the tools and techniques they use. As
10
the "better legitimization of all choices made during the evaluation process
increases the value of the test, the Procedures and techniques used must be
appropriate for the analysis and therefore chosen carefully(Hart, 2018).

3.1. Methods of Literature review

Below are some various methods used in reviewing a paper as a research

methodology(Templier and Paré, 2015).
A variety of current literature review protocols are in use. All forms may be
helpfully and properly suited to meet a given aim based on the approach required
to accomplish the objective of the analysis(Snyder, 2019).

11
 3.1.1. Narrative Reviews
The Narrative review summarizes studies on a subject of concern previously
published. You concentrate on concepts and hypotheses, methods of study, or
findings of the research(Paré et al., 2015). The most significant elements of the
research are the compilation and synthesis of existing literature and a full report on
recent expertise in the field under study. Novel ideas are offered, a bunch of
literature criticized or hypothesis tested in narrative reviews; instead, the form of
reviews "serves the science field through the required links between a wide and
fragmented selection of articles in an item and the reader who requires the time and
resources to follow up(Templier and Paré, 2015)". The narrative examination also
serves as a suitable starting point for potential research and development and
allows researchers to define and refine questions or theories in research. This kind
of analysis can also be extremely helpful, despite these criticisms, in putting
together and synthesizing a volume of literature in a particular field. As already
stated, its main objective is to provide the reader with an exhaustive context to
understand existing knowledge and to emphasize the value of new research.

12
 3.1.2. Mapping or descriptive reviews
The main purpose of the descriptive review is to establish whether a body of
information reveals discoverable patterns and trends in a given subject concerning
pre-existing ideas, hypotheses, methodologies, or results in a specific field of
research. This kind of review follows a systemic and clear process, including
searching, evaluating, and classification of studies in comparison with narrative
reviews. A relevant example of a larger publishing category uses the structured
search method (Paré et al., 2015). To produce quantitative findings, including
publishing year, research methods, data gathering techniques, and direction or
intensities, descriptive reviews authors draw some essential features from the
individual frequency analysis sample (e.g., positive, negative, or non-relevant
research findings(Paré and Kitsiou, 2017). Essentially, each research included in
the descriptive review is considered to be the analytical unit, and the literature
overall offers a database that aims to define interpretable patterns or draw whole
decisions on the advantages of the understandings, ideas, approaches, and
conclusions already in use. A descriptive review may say that its findings reflect
the state of the art in a specific area.

13
 3.1.3. Scoping Reviews
The scoping review seeks to provide an original indication of the current and future
scale of the literary sector on an emerging subject (Daudt et al., 2013). The
literature is based on a listing of new topics. A scope assessment can be undertaken
in order to evaluate the scope, and nature of research activities in a specific field,
decide the importance of conducting a thorough structural analysis or recognize
gaps in research in established literature(Paré et al., 2015). Scope assessments
typically conclude in conformity with their key objective by providing a
comprehensive research plan for possible projects and potential consequences for
study and experience. Contrary to narrative and descriptive reviews, the entire
scope of the area, including gray literature, must be as detailed as possible. To help
researchers exclude studies not consistent with research, inclusion and exception
criteria must be defined. A minimum of two individual developers can examine the
search strategy's abstracts and then screen the whole document. The synthesized
proof is relatively easy to present in a form of tables through subject or topic
research(Paré et al., 2015).

3.1.4. Aggregative Reviews

A- Systematic review: In systematic analyses, any empirical data that satisfies a

set of requirements previously defined may be aggregated, assessed, and
synthesized in one source. They follow concrete scientific standards and
strict methodological criteria closely. The use of explicit methodology
encourages a vast amount of research data to be combined with rigorous
examinations. They determine whether causes or connections are the same
and of the same significance, systematic reviews have been established to

14
 summarize scientific results systematically, transparently, and replicable and
are pointed to as the gold standard of reviews(Snyder, 2019). Given all the
benefits, its use in market analysis has not been predominantly. A systematic
assessment may be explained as a framework and process of study to
classify and assess the related research, and gather and interpret data from
such research to address a specific research question or hypothesis, a system
study aims to locate any empirical data that corresponds to the pre-specified
criteria of inclusion. In analyzing papers and other descriptive statistics, you
use structured and systematic techniques. (Witell et al., 2016).
B- Meta-analyses: are regarded as an effective synthesis tool that helps
researchers to draw conclusive results by defining proven methods. To
integrate independent research findings in a single objective evaluation or
overview affect scale, utilizing statistical approaches(Paré and Kitsiou,
2017). These examinations, known as meta-analysis studies, use special data
extraction methods and computational techniques (for example, network,
frequency, or Bayesian) to measure an effect size from individual research
outcomes and an interval of confidence that mirrors the degree of
uncertainty behind a point estimate. They then integrate the outcomes of
these experiments, Assess statistical similarity and estimate the total average
effect results of the diverse studies, taking into account their sample sizes,
using models for measurement of fixed or random-effects(Cheung and
Vijayakumar, 2016). The overview impact size represents the overall size of
the outcome measure for a single finding of significance or, broadly
speaking, the strength of an association between two variables in all
experiments that have been included in the structural evaluation. Meta-
analysis can provide more robust and consistent estimates of intervention

15
 results than data from single experiments alone when analyzed separately as
separate sources of evidence by statistically integrating data from several
studies(Randolph, 2018).

3.1.5. Realist Reviews

The realistic analysis involves conceptual study focused on theory, built to discuss,
enhance or complete traditional structural review through sensing differentially
complex policy data that can be applied to governance in various contexts(Okoli
and Schabram, 2010). They emerged from the critiques of positivist structural
reviews that rely on their "simplistic" fundamental conclusions. As discussed
above, institutional analyses aim to classify causes. The concept applies in fields
such as medicine and education where randomized clinical test studies can be
combined to assess whether a new treatment or procedure improves outcomes.
However, many argue that clear causal connections between initiatives and effects
in the areas of social policy, administration, and information systems cannot be
identified as there is no probability that there is a regular or reliable consequence
for any action (Paré and Kitsiou, 2017).

3.1.6. Critical Reviews

Finally, critical reviews attempt to examine and assess current literature objectively
in a given field of emphasis to report achievements, shortcomings, discrepancies,
conflicts, anomalies, and/or other relevant problems related to ideas, assumptions,
processes, or findings of the study(Paré et al., 2015). Critical evaluations, contrary
to other forms of analysis, seek to take the study conducted in a given field of
interest into consideration and to determine its credibility using critical evaluation
methods or techniques. Critical reviews also aim to educate other researchers
16
productively about the shortcomings of prior studies and to enhance knowledge
creation by concentrating and directing research to boost it much better(Templier
and Paré, 2015).

4. Comparison and discussion of methods

Each method of the review discussed various types of analysis questions or goals
and then identify and determine the strategies that need to be utilized to accomplish
the general objective(s) of the review. There is higher flexibility, for example, in
the discovery and syncretization of papers in narrative reviews (Paré et al., 2015).
Researchers also have relatively much flexibility in using many research
approaches, define and pick applicable scientific papers, describe their
organizational characteristics, explained how each analysis works, and draw
hypotheses. On the other hand, the strong systematism of systematic reviews is
characterized by strictness and use of specific algorithms on a priori strategy
that seeks to eliminate variations in the study and synthesis procedure(Witell et al.,
2016, Snyder, 2019). Some reviews are experimental (for example,
scoping/mapping reviews), while others could be performed to establish themes
(e.g., descriptive reviews) or to use the synthesis method which may include prior-
review critical analyzes (Paré et al., 2015). Therefore, it is important, before
undertaking a review paper, to decide the most suitable form of review, why the
analysis study is carried out, and what approaches are best matched to the
objectives desired.

17
 5. Conclusion
Literature review plays a significant role as a guideline for everyone's investigative
forms. They may be the foundation for the growth of awareness, establish policies
and practices protocols, offer proof of impact, and have the potential, if properly
carried out, to provide new ideas and guidance to a specific sector. They also form
the base for future study and hypothesis. However, it can be difficult to perform all
literature reviews and evaluate their validity, in this paper, an overview and
guideline regarding how to write a literature review are conducted step by step in
details. even there are more than six steps to write literature but most of the authors
agreed and concluded it for six main steps which are (1) Study questions
formulation and purpose, (2) Searching for existing literature, (3) Inclusion
examination, (4) Evaluation of primary research quality, (5) Data processing, (6)
Data interpretation and write a summarization. Then methods for reviewing the
literate are provided in detail in this paper. While there are various guidelines for
reviewing a paper, therefore, this paper shows and clarified the methods and made
a comparison among them, based on reviewing several papers by selecting six
methods used in most reviewing papers, the methods are; (Narrative reviews,
Mapping, or descriptive reviews, Scoping reviews, Aggregative reviews which it
consists of two types (Systematic and Meta-analyses), realist and critical reviews).
each method provided techniques for reviewing that somehow different from
others. If there is a trust that analysis is focused on high precision, therefore, any
knowledge gap that is found could logically contribute to the goal of the proposed
research in an analysis that is part of the study. In other instances, a conceptual
structure can be built using the developed themes to guide the research. Any
realistic, education and study guidance or effects should be included in all reviews.

18
References

BANDARA, W., FURTMUELLER, E., GORBACHEVA, E., MISKON, S. & BEEKHUYZEN, J. J. C. O. T. A. F. I. S.

2015. Achieving rigor in literature reviews: Insights from qualitative data analysis and tool-
support. 37, 8.
BANDARA, W., MISKON, S. & FIELT, E. A systematic, tool-supported method for conducting literature
reviews in information systems. ECIS 2011 Proceedings [19th European Conference on
Information Systems]:, 2011. AIS Electronic Library (AISeL)/Association for Information Systems,
1-13.
BANISTER, D. & VAN WEE, B. 2015. How to write a literature review paper.
BELCHER, B. M., RASMUSSEN, K. E., KEMSHAW, M. R. & ZORNES, D. A. J. R. E. 2016. Defining and
assessing research quality in a transdisciplinary context. 25, 1-17.
BOELL, S. K. & CECEZ-KECMANOVIC, D. 2015. On being ‘systematic’in literature reviews. Formulating
research methods for information systems. Springer.
CHEUNG, M. W.-L. & VIJAYAKUMAR, R. J. N. R. 2016. A guide to conducting a meta-analysis. 26, 121-128.
DAUDT, H. M., VAN MOSSEL, C. & SCOTT, S. J. J. B. M. R. M. 2013. Enhancing the scoping study
methodology: a large, inter-professional team’s experience with Arksey and O’Malley’s
framework. 13, 48.
FEDDES, A. R. & GALLUCCI, M. J. J. F. D. 2015. A literature review on methodology used in evaluating
effects of preventive and de-radicalisation interventions. 1-27.
FINFGELD‐CONNETT, D. & JOHNSON, E. D. J. J. O. A. N. 2013. Literature search strategies for conducting
knowledge‐building and theory‐generating qualitative systematic reviews. 69, 194-204.
HART, C. 2018. Doing a literature review: Releasing the research imagination, Sage.
HENRY, A. L. J. H. O. D., ACTIVITIES IN THE TEACHING OF PSYCHOLOGY: VOLUME I: INTRODUCTORY, S.,
RESEARCH METHODS, & HISTORY 2013. Teaching Students to Write Literature Reviews: A Meta-
Analytic Model. 228.
IOANNIDIS, J. P., FANELLI, D., DUNNE, D. D. & GOODMAN, S. N. J. P. B. 2015. Meta-research: evaluation
and improvement of research methods and practices. 13, e1002264.
JAIN, A., BHANDARI, N. S. & JAIN, N. Essential Elements of Writing a Research/Review Paper for
Conference/Journals. 2018 5th International Symposium on Emerging Trends and Technologies
in Libraries and Information Services (ETTLIS), 2018. IEEE, 131-136.
JESSON, J., MATHESON, L. & LACEY, F. M. 2011. Doing your literature review: Traditional and systematic
techniques, Sage.
LEITNER, P., KHALIL, M. & EBNER, M. 2017. Learning analytics in higher education—a literature review.
Learning analytics: Fundaments, applications, and trends. Springer.
MURRAY, R. 2011. How to write a thesis, McGraw-Hill Education (UK).
O'LEARY, Z. 2017. The essential guide to doing your research project, Sage.
OKOLI, C. & SCHABRAM, K. 2010. A guide to conducting a systematic literature review of information
systems research.
PARÉ, G. & KITSIOU, S. 2017. Methods for literature reviews. Handbook of eHealth Evaluation: An
Evidence-based Approach [Internet]. University of Victoria.
PARÉ, G., TRUDEL, M.-C., JAANA, M., KITSIOU, S. J. I. & MANAGEMENT 2015. Synthesizing information
systems knowledge: A typology of literature reviews. 52, 183-199.
RANDOLPH, J. J. A. T. A. D. 2018. A guide to writing the dissertation literature review. 29, 251-264.
ROWE, F. 2014. What literature review is not: diversity, boundaries and recommendations. Taylor &
Francis.
19
SCHMIDT, F. L. J. C. D. I. 2017. Statistical and measurement pitfalls in the use of meta-regression in meta-
analysis.
SNYDER, H. J. J. O. B. R. 2019. Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines.
104, 333-339.
SYLVESTER, A., TATE, M., JOHNSTONE, D. J. B. & TECHNOLOGY, I. 2013. Beyond synthesis: Re-presenting
heterogeneous research literature. 32, 1199-1215.
TEMPLIER, M. & PARÉ, G. J. C. O. T. A. F. I. S. 2015. A framework for guiding and evaluating literature
reviews. 37, 6.
TORRES-CARRIÓN, P. V., GONZÁLEZ-GONZÁLEZ, C. S., ACIAR, S. & RODRÍGUEZ-MORALES, G.
Methodology for systematic literature review applied to engineering and education. 2018 IEEE
Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON), 2018. IEEE, 1364-1373.
VOM BROCKE, J., SCHMID, A. M., SIMONS, A. & SAFRUDIN, N. J. B. P. M. J. 2020. IT-enabled
organizational transformation: a structured literature review.
VOM BROCKE, J., SIMONS, A., RIEMER, K., NIEHAVES, B., PLATTFAUT, R. & CLEVEN, A. J. C. O. T. A. F. I. S.
2015. Standing on the shoulders of giants: Challenges and recommendations of literature search
in information systems research. 37, 9.
WEE, B. V. & BANISTER, D. J. T. R. 2016. How to write a literature review paper? 36, 278-288.
WITELL, L., SNYDER, H., GUSTAFSSON, A., FOMBELLE, P. & KRISTENSSON, P. J. J. O. B. R. 2016. Defining
service innovation: A review and synthesis. 69, 2863-2872.
ZORN, T. & CAMPBELL, N. J. B. C. Q. 2006. Improving the writing of literature reviews through a
literature integration exercise. 69, 172-183.

20