Abstract

Although numerous books and articles provide toolkit approaches to explain how to conduct literature reviews, these prescriptions regard literature reviewing as the production of representations of academic fields. Such representationalism is rarely questioned. Building on insights from social studies of science, we conceptualize literature reviewing as a performative endeavor that co-constitutes the literature it is supposed to “neutrally” describe, through a dual movement of re-presenting—constructing an account different from the literature, and intervening—adding to and potentially shaping this literature. We discuss four problems inherent to this movement of performativity— description, explicitness, provocation, and simulacrum—and then explore them through a systematic review of 48 reviews of the literature on corporate social responsibility (CSR) for the period 1975 to 2019. We provide evidence for the performative role of literature reviewing in the CSR field through both re-presenting and intervening. We find that reviews performed the CSR literature and, accordingly, the field’s boundaries, categories, and priorities in a self-sustaining manner. By reflexively subjecting our own systematic review to the four performative problems we discuss, we also derive implications of performative analysis for the practice of literature reviewing.

Highlights

  • Numerous books and articles provide toolkit approaches to explain how to conduct literature reviews, these prescriptions regard literature reviewing as the production of representations of academic fields

  • Departing from representationalism, and building on insights from social studies of science (Hacking, 1983; Latour, 1999; Law, 2008) and the performativity concept (Gond, Cabantous, Harding, & Learmonth, 2016; Muniesa, 2014), this article conceptualizes literature reviewing as a performative endeavor characterized by a dual process of re-presenting the literature—constructing an account that is different from the existing literature—and intervening in the literature—adding to the literature and potentially transforming it

  • Recognizing the performative nature of literature reviewing allows to capture the co-constitution of academic fields and literature reviews, and calls attention to several problems inherent to performativity that we investigate relying on Muniesa’s (2014) analysis

Read more

Summary

Literature reviews

Directions for research—with academic fields, which encompass collections of literatures and articles, scholars with stakes in specific problems, concepts or methods, and their organization in ways that shape power positions and reputations (Bourdieu, 1984; Whitley, 2000). The problem of description calls for analyzing the methods and sampling strategies used to produce reviews (i.e., re-presentations of academic fields), and in particular the inclusions and exclusions that are involved in the constitutions of such maps of the literature. The problem of explicitness deals with how review categories become taken for granted in organizing a field To analyze this problem and account for intervening effects in the field, we reviewed each review in terms of what categories it used to organize the literature (e.g., distinguishing between normative, descriptive or instrumental studies of CSR), when these categories were used for the first time in our sample, and how they evolved over time when reused by subsequent reviews. Sampling strategy used and implications to this literature and by (re-)creating literature reviews to include/exclude on subsequent research boundaries for the field articles

Method justification
Discussion and Implications
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call