|
外国留学的同学们在写国外论文时，都要写文献综述，英文意即为Literature Review。其主要以较新的：社会动向、知识高度、相关科技等的形式，来综合体现跟你论文所专注方向的核心论点想关联，并向老师及学校展示出你在参考相关文献时所涉及知识体系的全新高度。同学们通过这些一定量的关联文献，再进行综合深入的分析，从而有理有据逻辑清晰地得出自己的分析过程及核心观点。 所以Literature Review在同学们的论文中非常重要，是论文体系不可缺失的一环。很多留学生对Literature Review通过前期信息也有所熟悉，但是真正开始写的时候就不是那么回事了。不少人拿到一篇论文就大开大合的开始写起来，结果写到最后的时候发现Literature Review还没动，往往很多情况是自己的很多分析和论点都是别人早就提过的，前面的功夫只能白费。所以我们的建议是，一定要先写Literature Review，先整理梳理下有哪些已经现存的相关研究，并且可以学习他们的分析思路，这样再开始动笔写论文就会游刃有余的多。 那么，关于Literature Review应该怎么写呢？下面我们就为大家分享最详细的讲解。 最常用的两种方式是： 1. 年代顺序：在该研究领域内，从最早的信息开始，按照发表的时间顺序讨论文献，对其历史演变、目前状况、未来趋势作纵向描述。可以很清楚了解到你的专题的来龙去脉。这种写法可适合动态性综述，很有层次的描述专题的发展方向。 2. 主题式：作者提出自己要研究的主题，然后对该专题国内外的各研究观点进行组织讨论，对各有关问题归在不同标题下，进行整理分析，然后再把不同标题连接起来。  你要要非常清楚参考文献有哪些作用？很简单：证明你所选择的研究问题、理论或者概念框架和研究方法，换言之，它是你要完成论文的直接论据。要明确主题的重要性。即让导师理解课题，以提供必须的背景信息和那些有意义的或者最近的研究是相似的。但不同的是需要通过这一系列的调查研究进而形成自己的结论。要理解回顾参考文献的意义。回顾通常情况下都是对原有的理论的一种概述，文献综述（Literature Review)是为了突出论文的主题，且它也能为论文的主题和论据提供支持通过引用一些官方或者专家的观点。文献综述（Literature Review)是独立的、也可以穿插一论述里面、也可以据不同的论题分成不同的章节。文献综述（Literature Review)应该是为你的研究提供一个理论框架，让你的读者看到你、清楚的理解与你主题相关的关键概念，研究的模型等等。再可以了解文献的来源。总结下来一般来源于：期刊论文，专题论文，电脑资料，学位论文，实证研究，政府报告和其他部门的报告，历史记载，统计手册以及网上的一些资料，当然对于网上的资料要有选择性。 最后，在开始设计和开始你的文献综述（Literature Review)之前一定要问自己几个问题，从而达到文章的论据的可行性。 1、你在你所调查的课题都做了什么?你打算用哪些选择原则 2、你怎么样安排你的讨论?按年代，主题，概念的顺序排列 3、不同的研究是怎么样联系在一起的?他们都做了什么贡献?他们的局限性是什么? 4、你自己的调研和参考的文献如何才能相一致？ 要完成一份比较优秀的论文作品，一定是建立在文献综述（Literature Review)的运用部分是否有其参考性，是否可行性，是否观点是原有的保持一致性，又或者有创新性。 按照综述格式撰写 文献综述通常包括：题目、摘要和关键词、前言、主题、总结、参考文献。 题目： 要确切、简明，能概括全文的中心内容，如利用：进展、研究、关系等说明语； 文体相符，避免题目新，内容不新问题，如：xx新进展等； 正如LinkLab 12月14日《国家自然基金标书撰写经验总结》中提及的技巧，建议大家再去回顾下。 摘要和关键词： 摘要是关键，主要概述你的review从哪些方面论述某一问题及最终可能得出的结论； 摘要后给出关键词，一般3-5个，可根据投稿杂志的要求。 前言： 说明写作的目的，定义综述主题、问题和研究领域； 指出有关综述主题已发表文献的总体趋势，介绍有关概念； 规定综述范围、包括专题涉及的学科范围和时间范围； 说明有关问题的现况或争论的焦点，引出review的核心主题。 主题： 要有自己明确的论点，才可开始撰写； 按照前面选定的时间顺序，或主题形式，将收集到的文献进行加工处理，资料归纳，分类编排； 对各组文献提炼观点，分析比较； 分清各作者的观点和文献内容，不能改变文献的内容； 运用好连接性语言，将各观点、事实等资料融为一体； 结构和层次要围绕观点自然展开，要有严谨的逻辑性。 总结： 对全文内容进行扼要总结，提出自己的观点，并指出存在的问题及进一步的发展方向和展望。 参考文献： 文献要全，要阅读大量的文献，这是写好review的前提吧； 文献要有代表性和可靠性，有些观点存在差异的，特别注意说明； 尽量多引用原始的研究文献（即一次文献），因为二次文献可能会有片面的观点； 文中引用的研究结果，参考文献不能省略； 参考文献质量直接决定你的review价值，多引一些权威或知名学者发表的文献，特别是《Science》、《Nature》、《The New England Journal OfMedicine》、《JAMA》、《The Lancet》等权威期刊； 尽量引用近几年的新文献，避免观点陈旧； 本研究专题的经典文献最好要引用； 文献格式我就不多说了，当然要按照投稿杂志要求的格式，用Endnote插入进行排版。 可见，写好一篇review最关键的就是阅读大量的文献，在阅读时，要注意： 在写之前，必须大量收集相关的数据库，对搜索到的文献要注意权威性； 在阅读时，有些人读了很多paper，但感觉读的时候明白，读完又什么都不知道了，这就要求你一定要自己总结概括文章的内容，做好记录和标记，同时，一定要清楚自己要做什么研究，需要找什么证据。 附上一篇往年很不错的论文范文，可以参考一下相关Literature Review写法。 Competitive Strategy - a critical review of the core academic arguments (LITERATURE REVIEW) INTRODUCTION Essentially, strategy is about setting a coherent and broadly understood long-term direction for a business (Johnson, Whittington, Scholes, Angwin & Regnér, 2014). The most basic ideas of strategy consider the application of strength against weakness, in an attempt to ensure that the most promising business opportunities are exploited (Rumelt, 2012). This simple concept highlights one of the key issues surrounding the evolution and effectiveness of strategy - the fundamental requirement to tie strategy concepts to the implementation of a series of interlinked actions that support it (Henry, 2011). Rumelt (2012) seeks to articulate this challenge in his discussions around 'good' and 'bad' strategy, whereby the setting of goals becomes the primary objective rather than solving business problems through the effective focussing of resources and actions (Mintzberg, Ahlstrand & Lampel, 2009). This challenge is further exacerbated when it is considered that a business does not function in isolation, as it has to reflect the demands and expectations of the broader operating environment within which it exists (Drucker, 1995). As a consequence, successful strategy requires the ability to adapt in order to reflect and (ideally) anticipate changes in the market (Alvesson & Willmott, 2012). To be able to do so on an enduring basis means that a company should be prepared to change everything about their business with the exception of their core values and beliefs (Stacey & Mowles, 2016). ATTEMPTS TO DEFINE STRATEGY These challenges are reflected within the core academic texts given the range of definitions applied by theorists when seeking to set the context for their arguments and philosophies around strategy (Grant & Jordan, 2012). Chandler (1963) focusses on the internal linkages needed when he proposes that strategy is about the determination of the long-term goals and objectives of a business and then subsequently adopting course of action (and allocating resources) in order to achieve them. In taking this viewpoint, Chandler focusses on the development of a logical business flow moving from the determination of business objectives and then ensuring that resources are allocated and prioritised to meet them (Johnson et al, 2014). In developing his thinking on strategy, Porter (2004) argues that it is about being different with the need to create the corporate ability to deliver a unique mix of value (as perceived by customers and consumers) that sets an enterprise apart from its competitors. In taking this view, Porter introduces the importance of the operating context for a business and the deliberate choices required to exploit the potential opportunities that environment can present (Jenkins, Ambrosini & Collier, 2016).#p#分页标题#e# Mintzberg (2007) considers strategy as an evolving pattern that results from a stream of corporate business decisions which may be more short-term in nature. In this way, Mintzberg allows for the gradual emergence of a coherent strategy on a more ad-hoc basis, where the values and beliefs of a company shape the incremental decisions made and ultimately set the corporate direction required (Johnson et al, 2014). The range of theories that exist around strategy and its supporting concepts can be encapsulated into key 'schools of thought' that highlight the inherent tensions in this three perspectives (Chandler, 1963; Porter, 2004; Mintzberg, 2007). These perspectives are essentially: l The Boundary School. Strategy seeks to identify the operating parameters of a business and how success can be shaped by either working within them or consciously choosing to compete in a new market. l The Dynamic Capabilities School. Using strategy to create a collective learning process within an organisation in order to develop and maintain distinctive competences that deliver a competitive advantage. With the evolution of the knowledge based economy, this focus on internal talent is proving particularly critical for modern businesses (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995). l The Configuration School. Setting strategies that move a business from one operating paradigm to another, often in an effort to respond to evolving market demands and expectations. (Volberda & Elfring, 2001). STRATEGY PERSPECTIVES AND THE TIME DYNAMIC Each school of thought seeks to outline a different perspective on strategy, but when considered from the viewpoint of corporate success (i.e. examining strategies that have delivered a distinct competitive advantage) a number of common factors can be identified (Grant & Jordan, 2012). Successful strategies appear to possess the ability to articulate a clearly recognised goal which endures over time and the corporate commitment to remain focussed on achieving that goal (Henry, 2011). That success is predicated on a comprehensive and accurate understanding of the competitive environment being faced, so that the strategy adopted reflected and exploited the operating context (Rumelt, 2012). Effective strategies are built upon an objective appraisal of the corporate resources base, ensuring that the business is able to exploit the internal (resource) strengths it possess whilst also protecting areas vulnerable to competitive pressures (Grant & Jordan, 2012). Ultimately, these three factors are brought together (through effective leadership) so that the strategy articulated is actually implemented and a business environment is created that responds well to change requirements (Stacey & Mowles, 2016). Johnson, Whittington, Scholes, Angwin & Regnér (2015) seek to capture the time dynamic associated with the delivery of an effective business strategy by arguing that a business needs to take a multi-faceted view looking at their operations over distinct periods or horizons. There is the need to consider current activities (horizon one) and the actions and activities needed to extend and defend the core business. Looking further out (horizon 2) requires the ability to consider emerging activities and markets that could provide new sources of profit and expansion. There is also a requirement to maintain an overview of how the operating environment may change in the future and to create viable options to exploit these changes even if no immediate profit is generated (horizon 3) (Johnson et al, 2015). Chaffee (1985) sought to capture these overlapping perspectives when attempting to articulate the main areas of academic agreement in the debate over strategy. These core tenets were outlined as being: l Strategy relates the business concerned to its operating environment and proposes a methodology or tactics to meet changes to that environment. l Successful strategy is inevitably complex because it is focussed on change and therefore introduces novel (and sometimes contentious) thinking into the business. As a result it is non-routine, non-repetitive and (echoing Mintzberg's thinking (2007)) can be unstructured. Not all strategy is deliberate in nature. l Strategy involves both action and process i.e. considering how a business implements strategy. The evolution of strategy requires the concepts outlined by the leadership to be underpinned by robust analysis that supports the strategic direction set. l Strategy, by its very nature, affects the whole business and can therefore be seen from a range of perspectives. (Chaffee, 1985) Mintzberg, Ahlstrand and Lampel (2009) further refined this thinking around the nature of strategy when they argued that it sets direction, focusses effort, defines the organisation and reduces ambiguity by providing consistency. It is this latter point which seems to reinforce the more simplistic definitions of strategy (i.e. setting corporate direction) as it seeks to resolve the 'big picture' issues so that the majority of personnel can focus on doing what is needed to ensure that the business remains profitable within that strategy framework (Grint, 2005). Ultimately, corporate strategy is about winning and competitive strategy is concerned with the basis upon which a company chooses to compete in the markets it has decided to operate within (Henry, 2011; Lynch, 2009). Whilst core academic texts focus on the analytical tools required to support the decision making processes required to develop and implement such strategies, it is also about framing conscious corporate actions around what not to do e.g. ending product lines and service offerings (Rumelt, 2012). LAYERING STRATEGY TO CREATE COMPETITIVE POSITIONING In accepting the importance of strategy in the creation of an enduring competitive advantage (Porter, 1980; Mullins & Christy, 2016), most academic texts consider how it operates at three distinct levels within a business - corporate, business and operational (Johnson et al, 2014). Again, this reinforces the definition of strategy as the mechanism setting long-term direction given how these different perspective reinforce the importance of linking implementation and delivery to both the operating environment and the corporate values articulated i.e. why they company exists in the first place (Stacey & Mowles, 2016; Lynch, 2009). Corporate strategy is focussed on identifying the scope of the business (e.g. markets, products, services) and the broad distribution of resources to each element of the organisation (Johnson et al, 2014). In essence, it seeks to determine two fundamental issues - what markets the business is going to compete within and how it will do so (Henry, 2011). In order to capture and share the core elements of corporate strategy across a business, many entities use mission, vision and values statements in an attempt to ensure that everyone understands the strategic direction set (McKeown, 2015). The mission should aim to articulate why a business exists (capturing both customer and corporate drivers), the vision focusses on the longer-term desired end state (such as growth ambitions) whilst corporate values outline the principles and operating ethos to be followed (Henry, 2011; Slack, Brandon-Jones & Johnston, 2016). For many businesses, it is an adherence to these values that are seen to provide a key point of competitive differentiation and are therefore seen to be vital components of any business strategy (Hooley, Piercy, Nicoulaud & Rudd, 2017). The rise in importance of the corporate social responsibility agenda and the consequent (perceived) value of ethical trading practices to consumers means that many academic strategists argue that such values must always come before corporate policies, practices and goals (Collins & Porras, 1994; Blowfield & Murray, 2014). However, others take a different perspective, emphasising the need to ensure that such values must also be continually reviewed to reflect the challenges presented within a continually evolving operating environment (Rumelt, 2012; Volberda & Elfring, 2001; Thompson, 2001). This debate highlights the challenges associated with attempting to set a clear and consistent long-term corporate strategy whilst also adapting to changes in the operating environment which are essential if any competitive advantage is to be secured and maintained (Lynch, 2009).  Business level strategy -traditionally referred to as competitive strategy in most academic texts - is more directly concerned with how a business should compete within a particular market (Johnson et al, 2015). Whilst it should reflect the overall corporate strategy set, it is more carefully tailored and structured to consider the immediate local/regional impact of markets, competitors, customers and other stakeholders (Jenkins et al, 2016). In simplistic terms, one company can be stated to possess a competitive advantage over its rivals when it is able to generate and sustain a higher rate of profit (Grant & Jordan, 2012). However, this perspective does not consider the complexities presented by the operating environment and that competitive advantage can also be generated from changes in the market, particularly if the company concerned is able to respond rapidly and effectively when faced with such changes (Wall, Minocha & Rees, 2010; Sitkin & Bowen, 2010). Porter (2004) argued that there are essentially three generic strategies to explore when considering how best to create and sustain this essential competitive advantage. Either a position of cost leadership can be adopted (becoming the low cost provider in the market for the products or services concerned), a differentiation strategy taken forward (bringing products and services to the market that are perceived to be unique or adding distinct/particular value) or a defined focus strategy can be explored (i.e. servicing a distinct, narrow market segment and then seeking to achieve either cost leadership or differentiation within it) (Hooley et al, 2017). Porter also emphasises the perceived danger of being 'stuck in the middle' (i.e. following a business strategy that mixes these distinctive approaches) as this is seen to be exposing the company to the defined and distinct strategies of current and emerging competitors (Porter, 2004).#p#分页标题#e# In contrast to Porter's view, other writers emphasise how the ability to move between distinct business strategies - and sometimes exploit them in parallel - offers a competitive advantage in the modern market environment (Grant & Jordan, 2012, Morrison, 2009). For example, speed (responsiveness) now underpins the concept of time-based competitive advantage, whereby the ability to use modern technology to service markets is driven by a more strategic focus on innovation in order to create new or novel concepts which are valued by customers (Stalk, 1988). Significant business-level strategic flexibility is therefore required to exploit new/emerging industries, new customer segments and new sources of competitive advantage (e.g. service speed) which further reinforces the importance of a cohesive overarching corporate strategy (Grant & Jordan, 2012). Porter's view is predominately shaped by the competitive operating environment, but other arguments can be formed which place a greater emphasis in the internal resource and asset base of a company as a source of competitive advantage (Barney, 1991). A critical examination of the company's physical, human and organisational resources can identify specific attributes that support the generation of a sustainable competitive strategy (Morrison, 2009). Essentially, corporate resources must possess value (able to exploit market opportunities whilst defending against competitor threats), be rare (difficult for competitors to imitate), be difficult to imitate (such as the advantages arising from customer brand associations) and the resulting business approach must make it challenging for competitors to adopt a similar strategy using alternative resources (Johnson et al, 2015). This resource-based view of the firm helps to establish the importance of operational strategies in helping to deliver both business-level and corporate-level strategy (Johnson et al, 2014). Operational strategy is focussed on the effective deployment of resources and business processes in order to build (and deliver) the short-term objectives that move the business in the direction required (Mintzberg et al, 2009). However, this is not just about implementation - this should be an iterative process as an effective operational strategy can provide the market intelligence and awareness needed to respond quickly to changes in the business environment thus informing business and corporate strategy (Jenkins et al. 2016; Keichel, 2010; Lynch, 2009). DEFENDING COMPETITIVE STRATEGY Once a competitive advantage has been established it can quickly be eroded by competitors through imitation and/or innovation (Porter, 2004). Rather than constantly revising the operational and business strategy approaches outlined (above) (which can result in an inconsistent and incoherent corporate strategy), it has been argued that it is possible to create barriers that insulate the business from the competitive pressures being faced for a period of time (Grant & Jordan, 2012). These 'isolating mechanisms' can inhibit competitors from mirroring the way in which a business sustains its competitive advantage, reducing the speed at which resource values are eroded (Rumelt, 2012). The available literature highlights a range of mechanisms that can be employed (such as patent protection, copyrights and brand registration) (Clifton, 2009; Crane & Matten, 2010). The key attributes needed to be able to maintain these competitive barriers are the ability to identify that another company possesses a competitive advantage, the competences to diagnose the nature and features of that advantage, the drive and incentive to invest in measures that protect corporate returns and the ability to acquire the resources needed to build the isolation mechanisms required (Grant & Jordan, 2012). Given the emergence of the knowledge-based economy and the rate of technological change and innovation, one potential approach is to attempt to secure first-mover advantage i.e. being the first company to deliver a new product, process or service to the market (Johnson et al, 2014). Whilst the innovation required is likely to demand significant resource investment, significant competitive benefits can accrue such as the ability to set market operating standards, capture any limited or scarce resources required, enhance brand reputation (being seen to lead the way in the minds of consumers) and secure/establish a customer base (by creating buyer switching costs such as contract terms) (Lynch, 2009; Wall et al, 2010). However, depending on the success of any subsequent isolation mechanisms employed there are risks associated with such a strategy (Rumelt, 2012). Competitors can seek to imitate the technological innovation that has taken place (with the costs of imitation estimated at only 65% of the costs of innovation) and they can also identify what did not work well for the innovating organisation and exploit any resulting market dissatisfaction (Johnson et al, 2015). REFERENCES Alvesson, M., Willmott, H. (2012). Making Sense of Management: A critical introduction, 2nd Edition. London: Sage Publications Ltd. Barney, J. (1991). Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), pp. 656-665. Blowfield, M., Murray, A. (2014). Corporate Responsibility, 3rd Edition, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Chaffee, E.E. (1985). Three Models of Strategy. Academy of Management Review, 10(1), pp. 89-98. Chandler, A.D. (1963). Strategy and Structure: Chapters in the history of industrial enterprise. Massachusetts: MIT Press. Clifton, R. (2009). Brands and Branding, 2nd Edition. London: The Economist Profile Books. Collins, J., Porras, J.I. (1994). Built to Last: Successful habits of visionary companies. New York: Harper-Collins Inc. Crane, A., Matten, D. (2010). Business Ethics, 3rd Edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Drucker, P.F. (1995). Managing in a Time of Great Change. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann Ltd. Grant, R.M., Jordan, J. (2012). Foundations of Strategy. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Grint, K. (2005). Problems, problems, problems: the social construction of leadership. Human Relations, 58(11), pp.1467-1494. Henry, A.E. (2011). Understanding Strategic Management, 2nd Edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hooley, G., Piercy, N.F., Nicoulaud, B., Rudd, J.M. (2017). Marketing Strategy & Competitive Positioning, 6th Edition. Harlow: Pearson Education Ltd. Jenkins, M., Ambrosini, V., Collier, N. (2016). Advanced Strategic Management: A multi-perspective approach, 3rd Edition. London: Palgrave. Johnson, G., Whittington, R., Scholes, K., Angwin, D., Regnér, P. (2014). Exploring Strategy: Text and Cases, 10th Edition. Harlow: Pearson Education Ltd. Johnson, G., Whittington, R., Scholes, K., Angwin, D., Regnér, P. (2015). Fundamentals of Strategy, 3rd Edition. Harlow: Pearson Education Ltd. Keichel, W. (2010). The Lords of Strategy: The secret intellectual history of the new corporate world. Boston: Harvard Business Press Lynch, R.L (2009). Corporate Strategy, 5th Edition. Harlow: Pearson Education Ltd. McKeown, M. (2015). The Strategy Book, 2nd Edition. London: FT Publishing International. Mintzberg, H. (2007). Tracking Strategies: Towards a general theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Mintzberg, H., Ahlstrand, B., Lampel, J. (2009). Strategy Safari: your complete guide through the wilds of strategic management, 2nd Edition. Harlow: Pearson Education Ltd. Morrison, J. (2009). International Business: Challenges in a Changing World. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Mullins, L.J., Christy, G. (2016). Management & Organisational Behaviour, 11th Edition. Harlow: Pearson Education Ltd. Nonaka, I., Takeuchi, H. (1995). The Knowledge-Creating Company: How Japanese companies created the dynamics of innovation. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Porter, M.E. (1980). Competitive Strategy: Techniques for Analyzing Industries and Competitors, New York: Free Press Inc. Porter, M.E. (2004). Competitive Advantage: Creating and Sustaining Superior Performance, New York: Free Press Inc. Rumelt, R. (2012). Good Strategy, Bad Strategy: The Difference and Why It Matters. London: Profile Books Ltd. Sitkin, A., Bowen, N. (2010). International Business: Challenges & Choices. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Slack, N., Brandon-Jones, A., Johnston, R. (2016). Operations Management, 8th Edition. Harlow: Pearson Education Ltd. Stacey, R.D., Mowles, C. (2016). Strategic Management and Organisational Dynamics: The challenge of complexity to ways of thinking about organisations, 7th Edition. Harlow: Pearson Education Ltd. Stalk, G. (1988). Time - the next source of competitive advantage. Harvard Business Review, July-August 1988, pp. 41-51. Thompson, J.L. (2001). Understanding Corporate Strategy. London: Thomson Learning. Volberda, H.W., Elfring, T. (2001). Rethinking Strategy. London: Sage Publications Ltd. Wall, S., Minocha, S., Rees, B. (2010). International Business, 3rd Edition. Harlow: Pearson Education Ltd. from:http://www.ukassignment.org/literaturereview/ |
 |
|||
| 网站地图 |
