Are you struggling with writing an independent theoretical literature review, perhaps even as part of your thesis and don’t know where to begin? Don’t worry! With the guidance from Webster and Watson (2002), you can bring structure to the chaos and impress even the harshest professor.
In this article, I’ll show you how to write a literature review based on Webster & Watson’s recommendations in 7 easy steps.
By the end of this tutorial, you’ll realize it’s not as daunting as it seems. In fact, it’s simpler than you think!
Writing a Literature Review According to Webster and Watson (2002)
Webster & Watson (2002) were the first to introduce a structured process for writing what’s now known as a “theoretical” literature review.
It’s important to note that systematic reviews originated in medicine, where their main purpose is to summarize empirical research findings.
In other disciplines, like most social sciences, the literature base is much more diverse. You’ll encounter qualitative studies, quantitative studies, mixed-methods research, and even purely conceptual papers.
The original methodology of systematic literature reviews or meta-analyses (as applied in medicine) doesn’t work well here. These methods rely on a highly uniform body of research, where nearly every study reports similar statistical tests.
That’s why the social sciences have developed what’s now referred to as a “theoretical literature review.” Some studies still use the term “systematic literature review,” even though they aren’t summarizing purely quantitative findings as originally intended.
A theoretical literature review brings together all types of literature and aims to contribute a unique theoretical perspective that goes beyond the sum of the individual studies.
This is why Webster & Watson’s (2002) article is titled “Analyzing the Past to Prepare for the Future.”
Here’s how they envision a theoretical literature review:
1. Your Literature Review Must Be Concept-Centric
At the beginning of your review, just like any academic paper, you need to identify a research gap or highlight a problem in the existing literature. The key here is to focus on a theoretical problem.
For instance, let’s say your topic is digital transformation in the workplace. That’s the phenomenon but it’s not a theoretical concept. A theoretical concept in this context might be “identity.”
The problem shouldn’t be practically motivated (e.g., companies struggling to adopt technologies like Zoom in the workplace) but theoretically motivated. For example, what Identity Theory A claims might contradict what we observe in reality, suggesting that Theory B might provide a better explanation.
In this example, current literature might focus either on organizational identity (Who are we as a company?) or individual identity (Who am I as an employee?). However, in the context of digital transformation, these identities are deeply intertwined. We need theoretical explanations to understand this interplay and its connection to technology.
Next, your background chapters should precisely define key concepts and clearly outline the scope of your literature analysis. In our example, you might need one chapter on digital transformation in the workplace and another on identity theory.
Webster & Watson also stress the difference between concept-centric and author-centric literature analysis—a distinction that’s relevant to all academic writing, so take note!
- Concept-centric writing begins like this:
Concept X (e.g., identity) … (Author A; Author B) - Author-centric writing begins like this:
Author A states that Concept X (e.g., identity) …
A theoretical literature review is always concept-centric – not just in writing style but also in its structure. You need a central theoretical concept – without it, you’re not writing a theoretical literature review according to Webster & Watson (2002).
2. Finding the Right Literature
To conduct a thorough literature review, the first step is to find relevant studies and papers on your topic. Webster and Watson recommend starting with the most prominent journals in your field. If your topic spans multiple disciplines, you may need to look into related fields as well. For example, research on digital transformation and identity in the workplace could appear in management, human resources, information systems, computer science, and psychology journals.
It’s crucial, however, to clearly define the scope of your review. Avoid making it too broad—this can quickly become overwhelming and dilute the impact of your theoretical contribution. Instead, focus on a specific angle or perspective that allows you to make a precise and meaningful contribution to the field.
This is where Webster and Watson adapt a key element from traditional systematic literature reviews: the structured search process. Use well-defined search terms and systematically explore academic databases. Additionally, they suggest incorporating a systematic search technique to expand your review.
3. Backward and Forward Searches
Once you’ve identified some initial studies through your database search, you can expand your review using two complementary techniques: backward and forward searches.
- Backward Search: Examine the reference lists of the studies you’ve already found. This helps you uncover older, foundational works that might be relevant to your research. It also gives you insight into how the field has evolved over time.
- Forward Search: Use citation databases like Google Scholar to identify newer studies that have cited your initial sources. This allows you to explore the most recent research developments in your area of interest.
Example:
Let’s say you’ve found a 2022 study by Author X on remote work and identity. A backward search might lead you to earlier works by Author Y (2016) and Author Z (2020) that explore similar themes. A forward search, on the other hand, could help you discover a 2023 study by Author A that offers valuable insights into your topic.
By combining these approaches, you’ll build a comprehensive foundation for your review, covering both historical context and current developments in your field.
4. Creating a Concept Matrix
Webster and Watson strongly advise against organizing your literature by author or publication date. Instead, they recommend grouping studies by concepts. This approach helps you identify patterns across the literature and makes it easier to compare findings.
The tool they suggest for this is a concept matrix—a simple table that allows you to categorize studies based on the theoretical concepts they address. This method not only makes your analysis more systematic but also helps you identify gaps in the research.
Example Concept Matrix:
| Study | Individual Identity | Organizational Identity | Inter-Organizational Identity |
|---|---|---|---|
| Author A (2015) | X | ||
| Author B (2017) | X | ||
| Author C (2020) | X | X |
Using a concept matrix like this, you can visually map the relationships between studies, identify areas that are well-researched, and pinpoint gaps that need further exploration. This clarity not only helps you structure your review but also provides a strong foundation for your theoretical contribution.
Additionally, you can include the matrix as a figure in your final paper to make your analysis more transparent and visually appealing.
5. Theory Development
A key part of Webster and Watson’s method is developing a theoretical contribution.
A theoretical literature review isn’t just about summarizing existing studies it’s also about proposing new theoretical ideas. This might involve creating a theoretical framework or model based on your analysis.
There are several ways to approach this, and while none of them are simple, once you understand what’s expected, your review can make a meaningful contribution.
Option 1: Develop a Theoretical Model/Framework from Scratch
With this approach, you analyze the selected literature without relying on an existing theory. For instance, you could develop a model for identity threats caused by workplace technologies, perhaps focusing on employees at the individual level.
Option 2: Build on an Existing Theoretical Model/Framework
Here, you take an established framework or model from another context and expand it. For example, there might already be a model in psychology that explains identity threats without considering technology. Your literature analysis could extend this model by incorporating a technological dimension.
6. Formulating Propositions
Webster & Watson emphasize that your review should make it easy for other researchers to build on your work and apply your ideas.
One way to do this is by formulating propositions – generalized ideas that others can test quantitatively as hypotheses or explore further using qualitative methods.
Example: Digital Transformation and Identity
Let’s say your analysis uncovers a range of findings on identity threats:
- Author A (2015): Strategic investments in artificial intelligence threaten the identity of customer service employees.
- Author B (2017): ChatGPT reinforces the identity of individuals in management roles.
- Author C (2020): Increased use of Zoom weakens organizational identity.
These findings hint at broader theoretical relationships that you can summarize as propositions. In reality, you’d usually be working with far more studies than just three.
Possible Propositions:
- Strategic investments in artificial intelligence undermine the professional identity of employees in roles that traditionally rely on personal interactions.
- The use of AI technologies strengthens the professional identity of managers by supporting their decision-making and leadership roles.
- Increased remote work reduces employees’ sense of belonging and identification with their organization.
In your review, it’s best to focus even more narrowly than in this example. For instance, concentrating only on individuals or only on organizations.
7. Evaluating Your Model/Framework and Propositions
To support your theoretical ideas, Webster & Watson recommend drawing on three main sources:
- Theoretical Explanations
Base your theoretical ideas on established scientific models and concepts. These theories help explain the “why” behind your propositions by highlighting known relationships and mechanisms. They provide a logical foundation that gives your propositions credibility. - Empirical Findings
Use evidence from related studies or similar research topics to back up your propositions. These findings show that similar relationships have already been successfully tested, even if they don’t directly address your specific topic. - Practical Experiences
Practical insights or real-world case studies can also support your propositions. These examples demonstrate how your concepts or models work in practice, complementing the theoretical and empirical foundations.
Wrap up your discussion by outlining the implications for researchers and, if relevant, for practitioners.
Now all that’s left is to write a conclusion, and your theoretical literature review is complete!
Have questions? Drop me a comment!