amann-literature-synthesis

name	amann-literature-synthesis
description	Use when systematically gathering, coding, and synthesizing a management/organization literature for an Academy of Management Annals (Annals) review — the search-and-coverage methodology and the choice of narrative vs. systematic vs. bibliometric integration. Builds the corpus and synthesis notes; it does not impose the organizing spine (amann-organizing-framework) or write prose.

Literature Synthesis Methodology (amann-literature-synthesis)

When to trigger

• The proposal was invited and it is time to read the field thoroughly and transparently
• Reading feels unsystematic; you fear missing streams a referee could name
• You have many papers but no way to code, compare, or reconcile them
• You must decide whether this review is narrative, systematic, or bibliometric in method

At Annals you synthesize — you do not run primary research

The folder name says "data analysis," but an Annals review reports no data of its own. Your "analysis" is the systematic appraisal and integration of a literature. The credibility of the whole review rests on the reader's belief that you read everything that matters and coded it consistently. Build coverage as a transparent process, not from memory.

Choose the integration method first

Method	What it does	Best when
Narrative / integrative review	reads, interprets, and reorganizes the literature into a new framework	the contribution is conceptual integration (Annals' core mode)
Systematic review	a pre-specified, reproducible search-and-screen protocol; transparent inclusion	the field is large and you must prove comprehensive, unbiased coverage
Bibliometric / meta-analytic	co-citation, co-word, or quantitative effect-size synthesis	the contribution is structural (intellectual map) or a cumulative magnitude estimate

Most Annals reviews are integrative narrative with a systematic backbone: a transparent search establishes coverage, and the narrative does the reorganizing. Bibliometrics can support the framework but rarely replaces the interpretive contribution.

Building coverage to saturation

1. Seed set. Start from the proposal's key references and the field's canonical pieces.
2. Transparent search. Search the major databases (Web of Science, Scopus, EBSCO/Business Source, Google Scholar) by topic keywords; record terms, databases, dates, and counts so the "Review scope and process" claims are auditable.
3. Forward + backward snowball. Backward: each paper's reference list. Forward: who cites the seeds. Iterate until new searches stop turning up unseen important work (saturation).
4. Inclusion / exclusion logic, stated. Define what is in and out (time window, journal tier, theoretical vs. empirical, allied fields) and apply it consistently — referees ask "why did you omit X?"
5. Working papers + adjacent literatures. A current review must reach recent work and the bordering fields (organizational psychology, sociology) the literature draws on, or it reads stale or siloed.
6. Saturation log. Record when each search stopped yielding new must-cite work — this is your evidence of comprehensiveness for amann-evidence-standards and the referees.

From reading to synthesis (a coding matrix, not a summary)

Summarizing restates each paper; synthesizing makes papers talk to each other. Code the corpus as you read:

Column	What to capture
Study	author–year; the contribution you cite it for
Construct / question	exactly what it theorizes or measures (so incommensurable work is not pooled)
Theory base	the lens it uses (so you can map streams and detect silos)
Method / context	design, sample, setting (so you can weight credibility)
Finding / claim	direction + magnitude or the conceptual move
Tension	which work it agrees/conflicts with, and why

This matrix feeds the organizing framework, the synthesis tables, and the even-handed treatment of debates. You appraise the studies (you are the field's reviewer-of-record); you do not re-run or "correct" them.

Checklist

• Integration method chosen and justified (narrative-integrative / systematic / bibliometric)
• Seed set drawn from canonical pieces + proposal references
• Search terms, databases, dates, and counts recorded for the "scope and process" account
• Forward and backward snowball iterated to saturation
• Inclusion/exclusion logic stated and applied consistently
• Recent working papers and adjacent literatures included (no staleness, no silo)
• Saturation log records where searches stopped yielding new must-cites
• Coding matrix captures construct + theory base + method + finding + tensions
• Incommensurable constructs flagged (not pooled into a false "the literature finds…")
• No major author/stream whose omission a referee could name

Anti-patterns

• Reviewing from a personal reading list (predictable coverage gaps a referee will spot)
• Summarizing paper-by-paper instead of synthesizing across the corpus
• Pooling studies that theorize different constructs into one "the field shows…" claim
• An undocumented search with no terms, databases, or counts — coverage claims become unfalsifiable
• Ignoring working papers (stale) or adjacent literatures (siloed)
• Re-estimating or "fixing" primary studies — an Annals review appraises, it does not re-run

Output format

【Method】narrative-integrative / systematic / bibliometric — and why
【Seed set】<canonical + proposal references>
【Search record】terms / databases / dates / counts logged? Y/N
【Snowball】backward+forward iterated to saturation? Y/N
【Inclusion logic】stated and consistently applied? Y/N
【Frontier + adjacency】recent WPs + bordering fields included? Y/N
【Saturation evidence】<where searches stopped yielding new must-cites>
【Coding matrix】construct/theory/method/finding/tension rows ready? Y/N
【Coverage risks】<any author/stream an omission referee could name>
【Next skill】→ amann-organizing-framework (impose the integrative spine on the matrix)