The Problematizing Review: A Counterpoint to Elsbach and Van Knippenberg’s Argument for Integrative Reviews

• Author: Mats Alvesson,Jörgen Sandberg
• Published date: 01 September 2020
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12582
• Date: 01 September 2020

© 2020 Society for the Advancement of Management Studies and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

The Problematizing Review: A Counterpoint to

Elsbach and Van Knippenberg’s Argument for

Integrative Reviews

Mats Alvessona and Jörgen Sandbergb,c

aLund University; bThe University of Queensland; cUniversity of Warwick

ABSTRACT In this paper we provide a counterpoint to conventional views on integrative reviews

in knowledge development, as exemplified by Elsbach and Van Knippenberg (2020). First, we

critique their proposed integrative review by identifying and problematizing several key as-

sumptions underlying it, particularly their idea that the integrative review can simply build on

existing studies and lead the way to knowledge. Second, based on this critique, we propose as an

alternative the problematizing review, which is based on the following four core principles: the

ideal of reflexivity, reading more broadly but selectively, not accumulating but problematizing,

and the concept that ‘less is more’. In contrast to the integrative review, which regards reviews as

a ‘building exercise’, the problematizing review regards reviews as an ‘opening up exercise’ that

enables researchers to imagine how to rethink existing literature in ways that generate new and

‘better’ ways of thinking about specific phenomena.

Keywords: knowledge development, literature review, problematization, reflexivity

INTRODUCTION

Systematically going through existing studies within a specific area is a vital part of al-

most all research. Many researchers find ambitious and systematic literature reviews

highly beneficial, as they help them to get a better grasp of a specific domain of research.

Although literature reviews are also carried out in individual research papers, as a way

of establishing an area for contribution (Locke and Golden-Biddle, 1997), this is typi-

cally done in a selective and rather superficial and simplistic way. This is because sum-

marizing existing work in a few pages encourages arbitrary divisions and rather crude

ways of representing sometimes highly complex studies. More thorough, ambitious and

Journal of Man agement Studi es 57:6 September 2020

doi:10. 1111/j oms .12 58 2

Address for reprints: Jörgen Sandberg, UQ Business School, The University of Queensland, Brisbane,

Queensland 4072, Australia (j.sandberg@business.uq.edu.au).