Advancing Theory with Rigorous Problematizing Reviews: Giving-up Labels-Centric Literature Samples

Abstract

Problematizing reviews seem doomed to be suspected of a lack of academic rigor because their advocates remain reluctant to use systematic sampling methodologies. Their reluctance is based on the premise that systematic reviews only cover pieces of research citing the name(s) of the construct(s) commonly used to study a phenomenon, what prevents any problematization of such construct(s). To envisage how to systematically sample existing literature without falling into such a sampling trap, we introduce a three-dimensional definition of constructs (label, intension, extension). Thanks to this framework, we first show that extension-centric samples outweigh the pitfalls that advocates of problematizing reviews associate with systematic methodologies relying on labels-centric samples. Second, we explain that this alternative sampling strategy enables reviews authors to excavate how the empirical objects being part of the extension of the phenomenon focal to the review are categorized by the theoretical schools that study them. Three ideal-typical of such categorizations emerge from our analysis—integrated, in halos or in Russian dolls—and we show that all of them are venues for problematization. This article contributes to the discussion of how to advance theory with review articles by theoretically developing a systematic sampling methodology enabling rigorous problematizing reviews.