A narrative literature review process for an academic business research thesis
Abstract
Research on the systematic literature review process is extensive, but a justified explanation of how a narrative literature review process progresses remains absent from the existing literature. The purpose of this study is to increase understanding about the narrative literature review process. By building on process theory and the literature on systematic literature reviews and by empirically examining the literature review processes for bachelor’s theses in a European business school, we reveal that a narrative literature process is iterative, non-structured and multi-layered; contains several cumulative written outcomes; and is embedded in a social context wherein various official and non-official actors guide and support the beginning researcher. This study is a fresh attempt to explain the progress of a literature review process with help of process theory, thereby offering novel insights into the research on literature reviews in general and on narrative literature reviews across various fields of human sciences specifically.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The narrative review approach was chosen over systematic reviews because of the fragmented nature of empirical data on AI adoption by SMEs in developing economies such as Botswana.
“This approach was strategically chosen over more structured methods, such as systematic reviews, because of the fragmented nature of empirical data specifically concerning AI adoption by SMEs in developing economies such as Botswana (Juntunen & Lehenkari, 2019).”
From Artificial Intelligence Adoption for Sustainable Development in SMEs: Challenges, Strategic Pathways, and Lessons for Developing Economies (2026) · cites this paper as Juntunen & Lehenkari, 2019
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 34 · Cited by 99
- Authors
- Juntunen, M., & Lehenkari, M.
- Affiliations
- University of Oulu (FI)
- Corresponding author
- Juntunen, Mari
- ORCID
- Juntunen, Mari
- Venue
- Studies in Higher Education
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2019-06-13
- Volume
- 46
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 330-342
- ISSN
- 0307-5079 (ISSN-L)
- 1470-174X
- OpenAlex
- W2952007669
- Cited by
- 99
- References
- 34
- Citations by year
- 2026: 22 · 2025: 20 · 2024: 21 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 1 · 2016: 1
- FWCI
- 6.51
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Studies in Higher Education (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Doctoral Education Challenges and Solutions
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Academic Writing and Publishing
- Keywords
- process theory, undergraduate theses, business school research, social context of research, academic writing, thesis supervision
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review