hypothesis in literature review

LITERATURE REVIEW AND HYPOTHESES

It is common to present the literature with supporting articles that are the foundation for your hypotheses—your tentative answer to the research questions stating the relationship between variables (what we already know supports what you believe your hypothesized results will be). Providing definitions of your conceptual variables is needed.

Your lit review should develop a theory. To make a contribution to the literature, your idea needs to be articulated, organized, and connected in a way that suggests new directions for researchers, fills a gap in the lit. Ideas are not a theory, regardless of how original they are. To be a theory, ideas have to be presented with a clear logic and causal relationship among the variables studied.

As stated in Chapter 6, Matching Publication Sources, be sure to match your literature review to that of your target journal. Use the same literature title heading and any subheadings commonly used in the target journal (literature review, conceptual framework, theoretical development and hypotheses, theory and hypotheses). Match paragraph lengths and writing level and format hypotheses exactly like in the target journal. The number of your references should be in the same range as other articles in your target journal, unless it is a very new topic with limited prior research. Again, cite articles from the target journal.

Here are some do’s and don’ts when writing your lit review.

• Keywords . Do use keywords when searching for the literature you will include in your review.
• Target journal . Do review and emulate the lit reviews of articles you cite, and match the target journal lit reviews. As stated, be sure to cite articles from the journal you will submit your work to.
• Hypotheses . Do format your hypotheses in the same way as the target journal articles (Chapter 6 Matching Publication Sources).
• Relevant . Do cite all the “relevant” articles that relate to your study. An article is not a dissertation, so don’t reference irrelevant articles.

The above is an excerpt of Dr. Lussier’s book, Publish Don’t Perish . More points for lit review, along with 170+ tips to get published are included.

15 Comments:

I just could not go away your site prior to suggesting that I extremely loved the usual info a person provide on your guests? Is gonna be again regularly in order to investigate cross-check new posts

Everything is very open with a really clear explanation of the issues. It was really informative. Your website is very helpful. Thank you for sharing!

Hi there,I read your new stuff named “LITERATURE REVIEW AND HYPOTHESES |” on a regular basis.Your humoristic style is awesome, keep doing what you’re doing! And you can look our website about proxy.

LITERATURE REVIEW AND HYPOTHESES | aiqsbvcnpq iqsbvcnpq http://www.g2499py76wcfvlm58936r27a36blobi5s.org/ [url=http://www.g2499py76wcfvlm58936r27a36blobi5s.org/]uiqsbvcnpq[/url]

I had a Springfield College student do an internship with me to develop the website

LITERATURE REVIEW AND HYPOTHESES | gdskmwvzgp http://www.g510m1752hjose40vwd9f300yo0q3z1os.org/ [url=http://www.g510m1752hjose40vwd9f300yo0q3z1os.org/]ugdskmwvzgp[/url] agdskmwvzgp

LITERATURE REVIEW AND HYPOTHESES | aqvhfxphfh [url=http://www.gr03x865dwpto35t0a18o1op942wog92s.org/]uqvhfxphfh[/url] qvhfxphfh http://www.gr03x865dwpto35t0a18o1op942wog92s.org/

There was no comment

Are you writing the articles in your website yourself or you outsource them? I am a blogger and having difficulty with content. Other bloggers told me I should use an AI content writer, they are actually pretty good. Here is a sample article some bloggers shared with me. Please let me know what your opinion on it and should I go ahead and use AI – https://sites.google.com/view/best-ai-content-writing-tools/home

I’m really not a good blogger. I used material from my Textbooks. Search Lussier on Amazon for my books.

If you are going for finest contents like me, only visit this web site every day because it gives feature contents, thanks

my web site tracfone special

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and site URL in my browser for next time I post a comment.

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, generate accurate citations for free.

• Knowledge Base

Methodology

• How to Write a Strong Hypothesis | Steps & Examples

How to Write a Strong Hypothesis | Steps & Examples

Published on May 6, 2022 by Shona McCombes . Revised on November 20, 2023.

A hypothesis is a statement that can be tested by scientific research. If you want to test a relationship between two or more variables, you need to write hypotheses before you start your experiment or data collection .

Example: Hypothesis

Daily apple consumption leads to fewer doctor’s visits.

Table of contents

What is a hypothesis, developing a hypothesis (with example), hypothesis examples, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions about writing hypotheses.

A hypothesis states your predictions about what your research will find. It is a tentative answer to your research question that has not yet been tested. For some research projects, you might have to write several hypotheses that address different aspects of your research question.

A hypothesis is not just a guess – it should be based on existing theories and knowledge. It also has to be testable, which means you can support or refute it through scientific research methods (such as experiments, observations and statistical analysis of data).

Variables in hypotheses

Hypotheses propose a relationship between two or more types of variables .

• An independent variable is something the researcher changes or controls.
• A dependent variable is something the researcher observes and measures.

If there are any control variables , extraneous variables , or confounding variables , be sure to jot those down as you go to minimize the chances that research bias  will affect your results.

In this example, the independent variable is exposure to the sun – the assumed cause . The dependent variable is the level of happiness – the assumed effect .

Prevent plagiarism. Run a free check.

Step 1. ask a question.

Writing a hypothesis begins with a research question that you want to answer. The question should be focused, specific, and researchable within the constraints of your project.

Step 2. Do some preliminary research

Your initial answer to the question should be based on what is already known about the topic. Look for theories and previous studies to help you form educated assumptions about what your research will find.

At this stage, you might construct a conceptual framework to ensure that you’re embarking on a relevant topic . This can also help you identify which variables you will study and what you think the relationships are between them. Sometimes, you’ll have to operationalize more complex constructs.

Step 3. Formulate your hypothesis

Now you should have some idea of what you expect to find. Write your initial answer to the question in a clear, concise sentence.

4. Refine your hypothesis

You need to make sure your hypothesis is specific and testable. There are various ways of phrasing a hypothesis, but all the terms you use should have clear definitions, and the hypothesis should contain:

• The relevant variables
• The specific group being studied
• The predicted outcome of the experiment or analysis

5. Phrase your hypothesis in three ways

To identify the variables, you can write a simple prediction in  if…then form. The first part of the sentence states the independent variable and the second part states the dependent variable.

In academic research, hypotheses are more commonly phrased in terms of correlations or effects, where you directly state the predicted relationship between variables.

If you are comparing two groups, the hypothesis can state what difference you expect to find between them.

6. Write a null hypothesis

If your research involves statistical hypothesis testing , you will also have to write a null hypothesis . The null hypothesis is the default position that there is no association between the variables. The null hypothesis is written as H 0 , while the alternative hypothesis is H 1 or H a .

• H 0 : The number of lectures attended by first-year students has no effect on their final exam scores.
• H 1 : The number of lectures attended by first-year students has a positive effect on their final exam scores.

If you want to know more about the research process , methodology , research bias , or statistics , make sure to check out some of our other articles with explanations and examples.

• Sampling methods
• Simple random sampling
• Stratified sampling
• Cluster sampling
• Likert scales
• Reproducibility

 Statistics

• Null hypothesis
• Statistical power
• Probability distribution
• Effect size
• Poisson distribution

Research bias

• Optimism bias
• Cognitive bias
• Implicit bias
• Hawthorne effect
• Anchoring bias
• Explicit bias

A hypothesis is not just a guess — it should be based on existing theories and knowledge. It also has to be testable, which means you can support or refute it through scientific research methods (such as experiments, observations and statistical analysis of data).

Null and alternative hypotheses are used in statistical hypothesis testing . The null hypothesis of a test always predicts no effect or no relationship between variables, while the alternative hypothesis states your research prediction of an effect or relationship.

Hypothesis testing is a formal procedure for investigating our ideas about the world using statistics. It is used by scientists to test specific predictions, called hypotheses , by calculating how likely it is that a pattern or relationship between variables could have arisen by chance.

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the “Cite this Scribbr article” button to automatically add the citation to our free Citation Generator.

McCombes, S. (2023, November 20). How to Write a Strong Hypothesis | Steps & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved March 30, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/hypothesis/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

Other students also liked, construct validity | definition, types, & examples, what is a conceptual framework | tips & examples, operationalization | a guide with examples, pros & cons, unlimited academic ai-proofreading.

✔ Document error-free in 5minutes ✔ Unlimited document corrections ✔ Specialized in correcting academic texts

Purdue Online Writing Lab Purdue OWL® College of Liberal Arts

Writing a Literature Review

Welcome to the Purdue OWL

This page is brought to you by the OWL at Purdue University. When printing this page, you must include the entire legal notice.

Copyright ©1995-2018 by The Writing Lab & The OWL at Purdue and Purdue University. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, reproduced, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed without permission. Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our terms and conditions of fair use.

A literature review is a document or section of a document that collects key sources on a topic and discusses those sources in conversation with each other (also called synthesis ). The lit review is an important genre in many disciplines, not just literature (i.e., the study of works of literature such as novels and plays). When we say “literature review” or refer to “the literature,” we are talking about the research ( scholarship ) in a given field. You will often see the terms “the research,” “the scholarship,” and “the literature” used mostly interchangeably.

Where, when, and why would I write a lit review?

There are a number of different situations where you might write a literature review, each with slightly different expectations; different disciplines, too, have field-specific expectations for what a literature review is and does. For instance, in the humanities, authors might include more overt argumentation and interpretation of source material in their literature reviews, whereas in the sciences, authors are more likely to report study designs and results in their literature reviews; these differences reflect these disciplines’ purposes and conventions in scholarship. You should always look at examples from your own discipline and talk to professors or mentors in your field to be sure you understand your discipline’s conventions, for literature reviews as well as for any other genre.

A literature review can be a part of a research paper or scholarly article, usually falling after the introduction and before the research methods sections. In these cases, the lit review just needs to cover scholarship that is important to the issue you are writing about; sometimes it will also cover key sources that informed your research methodology.

Lit reviews can also be standalone pieces, either as assignments in a class or as publications. In a class, a lit review may be assigned to help students familiarize themselves with a topic and with scholarship in their field, get an idea of the other researchers working on the topic they’re interested in, find gaps in existing research in order to propose new projects, and/or develop a theoretical framework and methodology for later research. As a publication, a lit review usually is meant to help make other scholars’ lives easier by collecting and summarizing, synthesizing, and analyzing existing research on a topic. This can be especially helpful for students or scholars getting into a new research area, or for directing an entire community of scholars toward questions that have not yet been answered.

What are the parts of a lit review?

Most lit reviews use a basic introduction-body-conclusion structure; if your lit review is part of a larger paper, the introduction and conclusion pieces may be just a few sentences while you focus most of your attention on the body. If your lit review is a standalone piece, the introduction and conclusion take up more space and give you a place to discuss your goals, research methods, and conclusions separately from where you discuss the literature itself.

Introduction:

• An introductory paragraph that explains what your working topic and thesis is
• A forecast of key topics or texts that will appear in the review
• Potentially, a description of how you found sources and how you analyzed them for inclusion and discussion in the review (more often found in published, standalone literature reviews than in lit review sections in an article or research paper)
• Summarize and synthesize: Give an overview of the main points of each source and combine them into a coherent whole
• Analyze and interpret: Don’t just paraphrase other researchers – add your own interpretations where possible, discussing the significance of findings in relation to the literature as a whole
• Critically Evaluate: Mention the strengths and weaknesses of your sources
• Write in well-structured paragraphs: Use transition words and topic sentence to draw connections, comparisons, and contrasts.

Conclusion:

• Summarize the key findings you have taken from the literature and emphasize their significance
• Connect it back to your primary research question

How should I organize my lit review?

Lit reviews can take many different organizational patterns depending on what you are trying to accomplish with the review. Here are some examples:

• Chronological : The simplest approach is to trace the development of the topic over time, which helps familiarize the audience with the topic (for instance if you are introducing something that is not commonly known in your field). If you choose this strategy, be careful to avoid simply listing and summarizing sources in order. Try to analyze the patterns, turning points, and key debates that have shaped the direction of the field. Give your interpretation of how and why certain developments occurred (as mentioned previously, this may not be appropriate in your discipline — check with a teacher or mentor if you’re unsure).
• Thematic : If you have found some recurring central themes that you will continue working with throughout your piece, you can organize your literature review into subsections that address different aspects of the topic. For example, if you are reviewing literature about women and religion, key themes can include the role of women in churches and the religious attitude towards women.
• Qualitative versus quantitative research
• Empirical versus theoretical scholarship
• Divide the research by sociological, historical, or cultural sources
• Theoretical : In many humanities articles, the literature review is the foundation for the theoretical framework. You can use it to discuss various theories, models, and definitions of key concepts. You can argue for the relevance of a specific theoretical approach or combine various theorical concepts to create a framework for your research.

What are some strategies or tips I can use while writing my lit review?

Any lit review is only as good as the research it discusses; make sure your sources are well-chosen and your research is thorough. Don’t be afraid to do more research if you discover a new thread as you’re writing. More info on the research process is available in our "Conducting Research" resources .

As you’re doing your research, create an annotated bibliography ( see our page on the this type of document ). Much of the information used in an annotated bibliography can be used also in a literature review, so you’ll be not only partially drafting your lit review as you research, but also developing your sense of the larger conversation going on among scholars, professionals, and any other stakeholders in your topic.

Usually you will need to synthesize research rather than just summarizing it. This means drawing connections between sources to create a picture of the scholarly conversation on a topic over time. Many student writers struggle to synthesize because they feel they don’t have anything to add to the scholars they are citing; here are some strategies to help you:

• It often helps to remember that the point of these kinds of syntheses is to show your readers how you understand your research, to help them read the rest of your paper.
• Writing teachers often say synthesis is like hosting a dinner party: imagine all your sources are together in a room, discussing your topic. What are they saying to each other?
• Look at the in-text citations in each paragraph. Are you citing just one source for each paragraph? This usually indicates summary only. When you have multiple sources cited in a paragraph, you are more likely to be synthesizing them (not always, but often
• Read more about synthesis here.

The most interesting literature reviews are often written as arguments (again, as mentioned at the beginning of the page, this is discipline-specific and doesn’t work for all situations). Often, the literature review is where you can establish your research as filling a particular gap or as relevant in a particular way. You have some chance to do this in your introduction in an article, but the literature review section gives a more extended opportunity to establish the conversation in the way you would like your readers to see it. You can choose the intellectual lineage you would like to be part of and whose definitions matter most to your thinking (mostly humanities-specific, but this goes for sciences as well). In addressing these points, you argue for your place in the conversation, which tends to make the lit review more compelling than a simple reporting of other sources.

• USC Libraries
• Research Guides

Organizing Your Social Sciences Research Paper

• 5. The Literature Review
• Purpose of Guide
• Design Flaws to Avoid
• Independent and Dependent Variables
• Glossary of Research Terms
• Reading Research Effectively
• Narrowing a Topic Idea
• Broadening a Topic Idea
• Extending the Timeliness of a Topic Idea
• Academic Writing Style
• Choosing a Title
• Making an Outline
• Paragraph Development
• Research Process Video Series
• Executive Summary
• The C.A.R.S. Model
• Background Information
• The Research Problem/Question
• Theoretical Framework
• Citation Tracking
• Content Alert Services
• Evaluating Sources
• Primary Sources
• Secondary Sources
• Tiertiary Sources
• Scholarly vs. Popular Publications
• Qualitative Methods
• Quantitative Methods
• Insiderness
• Using Non-Textual Elements
• Limitations of the Study
• Common Grammar Mistakes
• Writing Concisely
• Avoiding Plagiarism
• Footnotes or Endnotes?
• Further Readings
• Generative AI and Writing
• USC Libraries Tutorials and Other Guides
• Bibliography

A literature review surveys prior research published in books, scholarly articles, and any other sources relevant to a particular issue, area of research, or theory, and by so doing, provides a description, summary, and critical evaluation of these works in relation to the research problem being investigated. Literature reviews are designed to provide an overview of sources you have used in researching a particular topic and to demonstrate to your readers how your research fits within existing scholarship about the topic.

Fink, Arlene. Conducting Research Literature Reviews: From the Internet to Paper . Fourth edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, 2014.

Importance of a Good Literature Review

A literature review may consist of simply a summary of key sources, but in the social sciences, a literature review usually has an organizational pattern and combines both summary and synthesis, often within specific conceptual categories . A summary is a recap of the important information of the source, but a synthesis is a re-organization, or a reshuffling, of that information in a way that informs how you are planning to investigate a research problem. The analytical features of a literature review might:

• Give a new interpretation of old material or combine new with old interpretations,
• Trace the intellectual progression of the field, including major debates,
• Depending on the situation, evaluate the sources and advise the reader on the most pertinent or relevant research, or
• Usually in the conclusion of a literature review, identify where gaps exist in how a problem has been researched to date.

Given this, the purpose of a literature review is to:

• Place each work in the context of its contribution to understanding the research problem being studied.
• Describe the relationship of each work to the others under consideration.
• Identify new ways to interpret prior research.
• Reveal any gaps that exist in the literature.
• Resolve conflicts amongst seemingly contradictory previous studies.
• Identify areas of prior scholarship to prevent duplication of effort.
• Point the way in fulfilling a need for additional research.
• Locate your own research within the context of existing literature [very important].

Fink, Arlene. Conducting Research Literature Reviews: From the Internet to Paper. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2005; Hart, Chris. Doing a Literature Review: Releasing the Social Science Research Imagination . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1998; Jesson, Jill. Doing Your Literature Review: Traditional and Systematic Techniques . Los Angeles, CA: SAGE, 2011; Knopf, Jeffrey W. "Doing a Literature Review." PS: Political Science and Politics 39 (January 2006): 127-132; Ridley, Diana. The Literature Review: A Step-by-Step Guide for Students . 2nd ed. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE, 2012.

Types of Literature Reviews

It is important to think of knowledge in a given field as consisting of three layers. First, there are the primary studies that researchers conduct and publish. Second are the reviews of those studies that summarize and offer new interpretations built from and often extending beyond the primary studies. Third, there are the perceptions, conclusions, opinion, and interpretations that are shared informally among scholars that become part of the body of epistemological traditions within the field.

In composing a literature review, it is important to note that it is often this third layer of knowledge that is cited as "true" even though it often has only a loose relationship to the primary studies and secondary literature reviews. Given this, while literature reviews are designed to provide an overview and synthesis of pertinent sources you have explored, there are a number of approaches you could adopt depending upon the type of analysis underpinning your study.

Argumentative Review This form examines literature selectively in order to support or refute an argument, deeply embedded assumption, or philosophical problem already established in the literature. The purpose is to develop a body of literature that establishes a contrarian viewpoint. Given the value-laden nature of some social science research [e.g., educational reform; immigration control], argumentative approaches to analyzing the literature can be a legitimate and important form of discourse. However, note that they can also introduce problems of bias when they are used to make summary claims of the sort found in systematic reviews [see below].

Integrative Review Considered a form of research that reviews, critiques, and synthesizes representative literature on a topic in an integrated way such that new frameworks and perspectives on the topic are generated. The body of literature includes all studies that address related or identical hypotheses or research problems. A well-done integrative review meets the same standards as primary research in regard to clarity, rigor, and replication. This is the most common form of review in the social sciences.

Historical Review Few things rest in isolation from historical precedent. Historical literature reviews focus on examining research throughout a period of time, often starting with the first time an issue, concept, theory, phenomena emerged in the literature, then tracing its evolution within the scholarship of a discipline. The purpose is to place research in a historical context to show familiarity with state-of-the-art developments and to identify the likely directions for future research.

Methodological Review A review does not always focus on what someone said [findings], but how they came about saying what they say [method of analysis]. Reviewing methods of analysis provides a framework of understanding at different levels [i.e. those of theory, substantive fields, research approaches, and data collection and analysis techniques], how researchers draw upon a wide variety of knowledge ranging from the conceptual level to practical documents for use in fieldwork in the areas of ontological and epistemological consideration, quantitative and qualitative integration, sampling, interviewing, data collection, and data analysis. This approach helps highlight ethical issues which you should be aware of and consider as you go through your own study.

Systematic Review This form consists of an overview of existing evidence pertinent to a clearly formulated research question, which uses pre-specified and standardized methods to identify and critically appraise relevant research, and to collect, report, and analyze data from the studies that are included in the review. The goal is to deliberately document, critically evaluate, and summarize scientifically all of the research about a clearly defined research problem . Typically it focuses on a very specific empirical question, often posed in a cause-and-effect form, such as "To what extent does A contribute to B?" This type of literature review is primarily applied to examining prior research studies in clinical medicine and allied health fields, but it is increasingly being used in the social sciences.

Theoretical Review The purpose of this form is to examine the corpus of theory that has accumulated in regard to an issue, concept, theory, phenomena. The theoretical literature review helps to establish what theories already exist, the relationships between them, to what degree the existing theories have been investigated, and to develop new hypotheses to be tested. Often this form is used to help establish a lack of appropriate theories or reveal that current theories are inadequate for explaining new or emerging research problems. The unit of analysis can focus on a theoretical concept or a whole theory or framework.

NOTE : Most often the literature review will incorporate some combination of types. For example, a review that examines literature supporting or refuting an argument, assumption, or philosophical problem related to the research problem will also need to include writing supported by sources that establish the history of these arguments in the literature.

Baumeister, Roy F. and Mark R. Leary. "Writing Narrative Literature Reviews."  Review of General Psychology 1 (September 1997): 311-320; Mark R. Fink, Arlene. Conducting Research Literature Reviews: From the Internet to Paper . 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2005; Hart, Chris. Doing a Literature Review: Releasing the Social Science Research Imagination . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1998; Kennedy, Mary M. "Defining a Literature." Educational Researcher 36 (April 2007): 139-147; Petticrew, Mark and Helen Roberts. Systematic Reviews in the Social Sciences: A Practical Guide . Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers, 2006; Torracro, Richard. "Writing Integrative Literature Reviews: Guidelines and Examples." Human Resource Development Review 4 (September 2005): 356-367; Rocco, Tonette S. and Maria S. Plakhotnik. "Literature Reviews, Conceptual Frameworks, and Theoretical Frameworks: Terms, Functions, and Distinctions." Human Ressource Development Review 8 (March 2008): 120-130; Sutton, Anthea. Systematic Approaches to a Successful Literature Review . Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications, 2016.

Structure and Writing Style

I.  Thinking About Your Literature Review

The structure of a literature review should include the following in support of understanding the research problem :

• An overview of the subject, issue, or theory under consideration, along with the objectives of the literature review,
• Division of works under review into themes or categories [e.g. works that support a particular position, those against, and those offering alternative approaches entirely],
• An explanation of how each work is similar to and how it varies from the others,
• Conclusions as to which pieces are best considered in their argument, are most convincing of their opinions, and make the greatest contribution to the understanding and development of their area of research.

The critical evaluation of each work should consider :

• Provenance -- what are the author's credentials? Are the author's arguments supported by evidence [e.g. primary historical material, case studies, narratives, statistics, recent scientific findings]?
• Methodology -- were the techniques used to identify, gather, and analyze the data appropriate to addressing the research problem? Was the sample size appropriate? Were the results effectively interpreted and reported?
• Objectivity -- is the author's perspective even-handed or prejudicial? Is contrary data considered or is certain pertinent information ignored to prove the author's point?
• Persuasiveness -- which of the author's theses are most convincing or least convincing?
• Validity -- are the author's arguments and conclusions convincing? Does the work ultimately contribute in any significant way to an understanding of the subject?

II.  Development of the Literature Review

Four Basic Stages of Writing 1.  Problem formulation -- which topic or field is being examined and what are its component issues? 2.  Literature search -- finding materials relevant to the subject being explored. 3.  Data evaluation -- determining which literature makes a significant contribution to the understanding of the topic. 4.  Analysis and interpretation -- discussing the findings and conclusions of pertinent literature.

Consider the following issues before writing the literature review: Clarify If your assignment is not specific about what form your literature review should take, seek clarification from your professor by asking these questions: 1.  Roughly how many sources would be appropriate to include? 2.  What types of sources should I review (books, journal articles, websites; scholarly versus popular sources)? 3.  Should I summarize, synthesize, or critique sources by discussing a common theme or issue? 4.  Should I evaluate the sources in any way beyond evaluating how they relate to understanding the research problem? 5.  Should I provide subheadings and other background information, such as definitions and/or a history? Find Models Use the exercise of reviewing the literature to examine how authors in your discipline or area of interest have composed their literature review sections. Read them to get a sense of the types of themes you might want to look for in your own research or to identify ways to organize your final review. The bibliography or reference section of sources you've already read, such as required readings in the course syllabus, are also excellent entry points into your own research. Narrow the Topic The narrower your topic, the easier it will be to limit the number of sources you need to read in order to obtain a good survey of relevant resources. Your professor will probably not expect you to read everything that's available about the topic, but you'll make the act of reviewing easier if you first limit scope of the research problem. A good strategy is to begin by searching the USC Libraries Catalog for recent books about the topic and review the table of contents for chapters that focuses on specific issues. You can also review the indexes of books to find references to specific issues that can serve as the focus of your research. For example, a book surveying the history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict may include a chapter on the role Egypt has played in mediating the conflict, or look in the index for the pages where Egypt is mentioned in the text. Consider Whether Your Sources are Current Some disciplines require that you use information that is as current as possible. This is particularly true in disciplines in medicine and the sciences where research conducted becomes obsolete very quickly as new discoveries are made. However, when writing a review in the social sciences, a survey of the history of the literature may be required. In other words, a complete understanding the research problem requires you to deliberately examine how knowledge and perspectives have changed over time. Sort through other current bibliographies or literature reviews in the field to get a sense of what your discipline expects. You can also use this method to explore what is considered by scholars to be a "hot topic" and what is not.

III.  Ways to Organize Your Literature Review

Chronology of Events If your review follows the chronological method, you could write about the materials according to when they were published. This approach should only be followed if a clear path of research building on previous research can be identified and that these trends follow a clear chronological order of development. For example, a literature review that focuses on continuing research about the emergence of German economic power after the fall of the Soviet Union. By Publication Order your sources by publication chronology, then, only if the order demonstrates a more important trend. For instance, you could order a review of literature on environmental studies of brown fields if the progression revealed, for example, a change in the soil collection practices of the researchers who wrote and/or conducted the studies. Thematic [“conceptual categories”] A thematic literature review is the most common approach to summarizing prior research in the social and behavioral sciences. Thematic reviews are organized around a topic or issue, rather than the progression of time, although the progression of time may still be incorporated into a thematic review. For example, a review of the Internet’s impact on American presidential politics could focus on the development of online political satire. While the study focuses on one topic, the Internet’s impact on American presidential politics, it would still be organized chronologically reflecting technological developments in media. The difference in this example between a "chronological" and a "thematic" approach is what is emphasized the most: themes related to the role of the Internet in presidential politics. Note that more authentic thematic reviews tend to break away from chronological order. A review organized in this manner would shift between time periods within each section according to the point being made. Methodological A methodological approach focuses on the methods utilized by the researcher. For the Internet in American presidential politics project, one methodological approach would be to look at cultural differences between the portrayal of American presidents on American, British, and French websites. Or the review might focus on the fundraising impact of the Internet on a particular political party. A methodological scope will influence either the types of documents in the review or the way in which these documents are discussed.

Other Sections of Your Literature Review Once you've decided on the organizational method for your literature review, the sections you need to include in the paper should be easy to figure out because they arise from your organizational strategy. In other words, a chronological review would have subsections for each vital time period; a thematic review would have subtopics based upon factors that relate to the theme or issue. However, sometimes you may need to add additional sections that are necessary for your study, but do not fit in the organizational strategy of the body. What other sections you include in the body is up to you. However, only include what is necessary for the reader to locate your study within the larger scholarship about the research problem.

Here are examples of other sections, usually in the form of a single paragraph, you may need to include depending on the type of review you write:

• Current Situation : Information necessary to understand the current topic or focus of the literature review.
• Sources Used : Describes the methods and resources [e.g., databases] you used to identify the literature you reviewed.
• History : The chronological progression of the field, the research literature, or an idea that is necessary to understand the literature review, if the body of the literature review is not already a chronology.
• Selection Methods : Criteria you used to select (and perhaps exclude) sources in your literature review. For instance, you might explain that your review includes only peer-reviewed [i.e., scholarly] sources.
• Standards : Description of the way in which you present your information.
• Questions for Further Research : What questions about the field has the review sparked? How will you further your research as a result of the review?

IV.  Writing Your Literature Review

Once you've settled on how to organize your literature review, you're ready to write each section. When writing your review, keep in mind these issues.

Use Evidence A literature review section is, in this sense, just like any other academic research paper. Your interpretation of the available sources must be backed up with evidence [citations] that demonstrates that what you are saying is valid. Be Selective Select only the most important points in each source to highlight in the review. The type of information you choose to mention should relate directly to the research problem, whether it is thematic, methodological, or chronological. Related items that provide additional information, but that are not key to understanding the research problem, can be included in a list of further readings . Use Quotes Sparingly Some short quotes are appropriate if you want to emphasize a point, or if what an author stated cannot be easily paraphrased. Sometimes you may need to quote certain terminology that was coined by the author, is not common knowledge, or taken directly from the study. Do not use extensive quotes as a substitute for using your own words in reviewing the literature. Summarize and Synthesize Remember to summarize and synthesize your sources within each thematic paragraph as well as throughout the review. Recapitulate important features of a research study, but then synthesize it by rephrasing the study's significance and relating it to your own work and the work of others. Keep Your Own Voice While the literature review presents others' ideas, your voice [the writer's] should remain front and center. For example, weave references to other sources into what you are writing but maintain your own voice by starting and ending the paragraph with your own ideas and wording. Use Caution When Paraphrasing When paraphrasing a source that is not your own, be sure to represent the author's information or opinions accurately and in your own words. Even when paraphrasing an author’s work, you still must provide a citation to that work.

V.  Common Mistakes to Avoid

These are the most common mistakes made in reviewing social science research literature.

• Sources in your literature review do not clearly relate to the research problem;
• You do not take sufficient time to define and identify the most relevant sources to use in the literature review related to the research problem;
• Relies exclusively on secondary analytical sources rather than including relevant primary research studies or data;
• Uncritically accepts another researcher's findings and interpretations as valid, rather than examining critically all aspects of the research design and analysis;
• Does not describe the search procedures that were used in identifying the literature to review;
• Reports isolated statistical results rather than synthesizing them in chi-squared or meta-analytic methods; and,
• Only includes research that validates assumptions and does not consider contrary findings and alternative interpretations found in the literature.

Cook, Kathleen E. and Elise Murowchick. “Do Literature Review Skills Transfer from One Course to Another?” Psychology Learning and Teaching 13 (March 2014): 3-11; Fink, Arlene. Conducting Research Literature Reviews: From the Internet to Paper . 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2005; Hart, Chris. Doing a Literature Review: Releasing the Social Science Research Imagination . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1998; Jesson, Jill. Doing Your Literature Review: Traditional and Systematic Techniques . London: SAGE, 2011; Literature Review Handout. Online Writing Center. Liberty University; Literature Reviews. The Writing Center. University of North Carolina; Onwuegbuzie, Anthony J. and Rebecca Frels. Seven Steps to a Comprehensive Literature Review: A Multimodal and Cultural Approach . Los Angeles, CA: SAGE, 2016; Ridley, Diana. The Literature Review: A Step-by-Step Guide for Students . 2nd ed. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE, 2012; Randolph, Justus J. “A Guide to Writing the Dissertation Literature Review." Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation. vol. 14, June 2009; Sutton, Anthea. Systematic Approaches to a Successful Literature Review . Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications, 2016; Taylor, Dena. The Literature Review: A Few Tips On Conducting It. University College Writing Centre. University of Toronto; Writing a Literature Review. Academic Skills Centre. University of Canberra.

Writing Tip

Break Out of Your Disciplinary Box!

Thinking interdisciplinarily about a research problem can be a rewarding exercise in applying new ideas, theories, or concepts to an old problem. For example, what might cultural anthropologists say about the continuing conflict in the Middle East? In what ways might geographers view the need for better distribution of social service agencies in large cities than how social workers might study the issue? You don’t want to substitute a thorough review of core research literature in your discipline for studies conducted in other fields of study. However, particularly in the social sciences, thinking about research problems from multiple vectors is a key strategy for finding new solutions to a problem or gaining a new perspective. Consult with a librarian about identifying research databases in other disciplines; almost every field of study has at least one comprehensive database devoted to indexing its research literature.

Frodeman, Robert. The Oxford Handbook of Interdisciplinarity . New York: Oxford University Press, 2010.

Another Writing Tip

Don't Just Review for Content!

While conducting a review of the literature, maximize the time you devote to writing this part of your paper by thinking broadly about what you should be looking for and evaluating. Review not just what scholars are saying, but how are they saying it. Some questions to ask:

• How are they organizing their ideas?
• What methods have they used to study the problem?
• What theories have been used to explain, predict, or understand their research problem?
• What sources have they cited to support their conclusions?
• How have they used non-textual elements [e.g., charts, graphs, figures, etc.] to illustrate key points?

When you begin to write your literature review section, you'll be glad you dug deeper into how the research was designed and constructed because it establishes a means for developing more substantial analysis and interpretation of the research problem.

Hart, Chris. Doing a Literature Review: Releasing the Social Science Research Imagination . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1 998.

Yet Another Writing Tip

When Do I Know I Can Stop Looking and Move On?

Here are several strategies you can utilize to assess whether you've thoroughly reviewed the literature:

• Look for repeating patterns in the research findings . If the same thing is being said, just by different people, then this likely demonstrates that the research problem has hit a conceptual dead end. At this point consider: Does your study extend current research?  Does it forge a new path? Or, does is merely add more of the same thing being said?
• Look at sources the authors cite to in their work . If you begin to see the same researchers cited again and again, then this is often an indication that no new ideas have been generated to address the research problem.
• Search Google Scholar to identify who has subsequently cited leading scholars already identified in your literature review [see next sub-tab]. This is called citation tracking and there are a number of sources that can help you identify who has cited whom, particularly scholars from outside of your discipline. Here again, if the same authors are being cited again and again, this may indicate no new literature has been written on the topic.

Onwuegbuzie, Anthony J. and Rebecca Frels. Seven Steps to a Comprehensive Literature Review: A Multimodal and Cultural Approach . Los Angeles, CA: Sage, 2016; Sutton, Anthea. Systematic Approaches to a Successful Literature Review . Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications, 2016.

• << Previous: Theoretical Framework
• Next: Citation Tracking >>
• Last Updated: Apr 1, 2024 9:56 AM
• URL: https://libguides.usc.edu/writingguide

How To Structure Your Literature Review

3 options to help structure your chapter.

By: Amy Rommelspacher (PhD) | Reviewer: Dr Eunice Rautenbach | November 2020 (Updated May 2023)

Writing the literature review chapter can seem pretty daunting when you’re piecing together your dissertation or thesis. As  we’ve discussed before , a good literature review needs to achieve a few very important objectives – it should:

• Demonstrate your knowledge of the research topic
• Identify the gaps in the literature and show how your research links to these
• Provide the foundation for your conceptual framework (if you have one)
• Inform your own  methodology and research design

To achieve this, your literature review needs a well-thought-out structure . Get the structure of your literature review chapter wrong and you’ll struggle to achieve these objectives. Don’t worry though – in this post, we’ll look at how to structure your literature review for maximum impact (and marks!).

But wait – is this the right time?

Deciding on the structure of your literature review should come towards the end of the literature review process – after you have collected and digested the literature, but before you start writing the chapter. 

In other words, you need to first develop a rich understanding of the literature before you even attempt to map out a structure. There’s no use trying to develop a structure before you’ve fully wrapped your head around the existing research.

Equally importantly, you need to have a structure in place before you start writing , or your literature review will most likely end up a rambling, disjointed mess. 

Importantly, don’t feel that once you’ve defined a structure you can’t iterate on it. It’s perfectly natural to adjust as you engage in the writing process. As we’ve discussed before , writing is a way of developing your thinking, so it’s quite common for your thinking to change – and therefore, for your chapter structure to change – as you write. 

Need a helping hand?

Like any other chapter in your thesis or dissertation, your literature review needs to have a clear, logical structure. At a minimum, it should have three essential components – an  introduction , a  body   and a  conclusion . 

Let’s take a closer look at each of these.

1: The Introduction Section

Just like any good introduction, the introduction section of your literature review should introduce the purpose and layout (organisation) of the chapter. In other words, your introduction needs to give the reader a taste of what’s to come, and how you’re going to lay that out. Essentially, you should provide the reader with a high-level roadmap of your chapter to give them a taste of the journey that lies ahead.

Here’s an example of the layout visualised in a literature review introduction:

Your introduction should also outline your topic (including any tricky terminology or jargon) and provide an explanation of the scope of your literature review – in other words, what you  will   and  won’t   be covering (the delimitations ). This helps ringfence your review and achieve a clear focus . The clearer and narrower your focus, the deeper you can dive into the topic (which is typically where the magic lies). 

Depending on the nature of your project, you could also present your stance or point of view at this stage. In other words, after grappling with the literature you’ll have an opinion about what the trends and concerns are in the field as well as what’s lacking. The introduction section can then present these ideas so that it is clear to examiners that you’re aware of how your research connects with existing knowledge .

2: The Body Section

The body of your literature review is the centre of your work. This is where you’ll present, analyse, evaluate and synthesise the existing research. In other words, this is where you’re going to earn (or lose) the most marks. Therefore, it’s important to carefully think about how you will organise your discussion to present it in a clear way. 

The body of your literature review should do just as the description of this chapter suggests. It should “review” the literature – in other words, identify, analyse, and synthesise it. So, when thinking about structuring your literature review, you need to think about which structural approach will provide the best “review” for your specific type of research and objectives (we’ll get to this shortly).

There are (broadly speaking)  three options  for organising your literature review.

Option 1: Chronological (according to date)

Organising the literature chronologically is one of the simplest ways to structure your literature review. You start with what was published first and work your way through the literature until you reach the work published most recently. Pretty straightforward.

The benefit of this option is that it makes it easy to discuss the developments and debates in the field as they emerged over time. Organising your literature chronologically also allows you to highlight how specific articles or pieces of work might have changed the course of the field – in other words, which research has had the most impact . Therefore, this approach is very useful when your research is aimed at understanding how the topic has unfolded over time and is often used by scholars in the field of history. That said, this approach can be utilised by anyone that wants to explore change over time .

For example , if a student of politics is investigating how the understanding of democracy has evolved over time, they could use the chronological approach to provide a narrative that demonstrates how this understanding has changed through the ages.

Here are some questions you can ask yourself to help you structure your literature review chronologically.

• What is the earliest literature published relating to this topic?
• How has the field changed over time? Why?
• What are the most recent discoveries/theories?

In some ways, chronology plays a part whichever way you decide to structure your literature review, because you will always, to a certain extent, be analysing how the literature has developed. However, with the chronological approach, the emphasis is very firmly on how the discussion has evolved over time , as opposed to how all the literature links together (which we’ll discuss next ).

Option 2: Thematic (grouped by theme)

The thematic approach to structuring a literature review means organising your literature by theme or category – for example, by independent variables (i.e. factors that have an impact on a specific outcome).

As you’ve been collecting and synthesising literature , you’ll likely have started seeing some themes or patterns emerging. You can then use these themes or patterns as a structure for your body discussion. The thematic approach is the most common approach and is useful for structuring literature reviews in most fields.

For example, if you were researching which factors contributed towards people trusting an organisation, you might find themes such as consumers’ perceptions of an organisation’s competence, benevolence and integrity. Structuring your literature review thematically would mean structuring your literature review’s body section to discuss each of these themes, one section at a time.

Here are some questions to ask yourself when structuring your literature review by themes:

• Are there any patterns that have come to light in the literature?
• What are the central themes and categories used by the researchers?
• Do I have enough evidence of these themes?

PS – you can see an example of a thematically structured literature review in our literature review sample walkthrough video here.

Option 3: Methodological

The methodological option is a way of structuring your literature review by the research methodologies used . In other words, organising your discussion based on the angle from which each piece of research was approached – for example, qualitative , quantitative or mixed  methodologies.

Structuring your literature review by methodology can be useful if you are drawing research from a variety of disciplines and are critiquing different methodologies. The point of this approach is to question  how  existing research has been conducted, as opposed to  what  the conclusions and/or findings the research were.

For example, a sociologist might centre their research around critiquing specific fieldwork practices. Their literature review will then be a summary of the fieldwork methodologies used by different studies.

Here are some questions you can ask yourself when structuring your literature review according to methodology:

• Which methodologies have been utilised in this field?
• Which methodology is the most popular (and why)?
• What are the strengths and weaknesses of the various methodologies?
• How can the existing methodologies inform my own methodology?

3: The Conclusion Section

Once you’ve completed the body section of your literature review using one of the structural approaches we discussed above, you’ll need to “wrap up” your literature review and pull all the pieces together to set the direction for the rest of your dissertation or thesis.

The conclusion is where you’ll present the key findings of your literature review. In this section, you should emphasise the research that is especially important to your research questions and highlight the gaps that exist in the literature. Based on this, you need to make it clear what you will add to the literature – in other words, justify your own research by showing how it will help fill one or more of the gaps you just identified.

Last but not least, if it’s your intention to develop a conceptual framework for your dissertation or thesis, the conclusion section is a good place to present this.

Example: Thematically Structured Review

In the video below, we unpack a literature review chapter so that you can see an example of a thematically structure review in practice.

Let’s Recap

In this article, we’ve  discussed how to structure your literature review for maximum impact. Here’s a quick recap of what  you need to keep in mind when deciding on your literature review structure:

• Just like other chapters, your literature review needs a clear introduction , body and conclusion .
• The introduction section should provide an overview of what you will discuss in your literature review.
• The body section of your literature review can be organised by chronology , theme or methodology . The right structural approach depends on what you’re trying to achieve with your research.
• The conclusion section should draw together the key findings of your literature review and link them to your research questions.

If you’re ready to get started, be sure to download our free literature review template to fast-track your chapter outline.

Psst… there’s more!

This post is an extract from our bestselling Udemy Course, Literature Review Bootcamp . If you want to work smart, you don't want to miss this .

You Might Also Like:

27 Comments

Great work. This is exactly what I was looking for and helps a lot together with your previous post on literature review. One last thing is missing: a link to a great literature chapter of an journal article (maybe with comments of the different sections in this review chapter). Do you know any great literature review chapters?

I agree with you Marin… A great piece

I agree with Marin. This would be quite helpful if you annotate a nicely structured literature from previously published research articles.

Awesome article for my research.

I thank you immensely for this wonderful guide

It is indeed thought and supportive work for the futurist researcher and students

Very educative and good time to get guide. Thank you

Great work, very insightful. Thank you.

Thanks for this wonderful presentation. My question is that do I put all the variables into a single conceptual framework or each hypothesis will have it own conceptual framework?

Thank you very much, very helpful

This is very educative and precise . Thank you very much for dropping this kind of write up .

Pheeww, so damn helpful, thank you for this informative piece.

I’m doing a research project topic ; stool analysis for parasitic worm (enteric) worm, how do I structure it, thanks.

comprehensive explanation. Help us by pasting the URL of some good “literature review” for better understanding.

great piece. thanks for the awesome explanation. it is really worth sharing. I have a little question, if anyone can help me out, which of the options in the body of literature can be best fit if you are writing an architectural thesis that deals with design?

I am doing a research on nanofluids how can l structure it?

Beautifully clear.nThank you!

Lucid! Thankyou!

Brilliant work, well understood, many thanks

I like how this was so clear with simple language 😊😊 thank you so much 😊 for these information 😊

Insightful. I was struggling to come up with a sensible literature review but this has been really helpful. Thank you!

You have given thought-provoking information about the review of the literature.

Thank you. It has made my own research better and to impart your work to students I teach

I learnt a lot from this teaching. It’s a great piece.

I am doing research on EFL teacher motivation for his/her job. How Can I structure it? Is there any detailed template, additional to this?

You are so cool! I do not think I’ve read through something like this before. So nice to find somebody with some genuine thoughts on this issue. Seriously.. thank you for starting this up. This site is one thing that is required on the internet, someone with a little originality!

I’m asked to do conceptual, theoretical and empirical literature, and i just don’t know how to structure it

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

• Print Friendly

• University of Texas Libraries

Literature Reviews

• What is a literature review?
• Steps in the Literature Review Process
• Define your research question
• Determine inclusion and exclusion criteria
• Choose databases and search
• Review Results
• Synthesize Results
• Analyze Results
• Librarian Support

What is a Literature Review?

A literature or narrative review is a comprehensive review and analysis of the published literature on a specific topic or research question. The literature that is reviewed contains: books, articles, academic articles, conference proceedings, association papers, and dissertations. It contains the most pertinent studies and points to important past and current research and practices. It provides background and context, and shows how your research will contribute to the field. 

A literature review should: 

• Provide a comprehensive and updated review of the literature;
• Explain why this review has taken place;
• Articulate a position or hypothesis;
• Acknowledge and account for conflicting and corroborating points of view

From  S age Research Methods

Purpose of a Literature Review

A literature review can be written as an introduction to a study to:

• Demonstrate how a study fills a gap in research
• Compare a study with other research that's been done

Or it can be a separate work (a research article on its own) which:

• Organizes or describes a topic
• Describes variables within a particular issue/problem

Limitations of a Literature Review

Some of the limitations of a literature review are:

• It's a snapshot in time. Unlike other reviews, this one has beginning, a middle and an end. There may be future developments that could make your work less relevant.
• It may be too focused. Some niche studies may miss the bigger picture.
• It can be difficult to be comprehensive. There is no way to make sure all the literature on a topic was considered.
• It is easy to be biased if you stick to top tier journals. There may be other places where people are publishing exemplary research. Look to open access publications and conferences to reflect a more inclusive collection. Also, make sure to include opposing views (and not just supporting evidence).

Source: Grant, Maria J., and Andrew Booth. “A Typology of Reviews: An Analysis of 14 Review Types and Associated Methodologies.” Health Information & Libraries Journal, vol. 26, no. 2, June 2009, pp. 91–108. Wiley Online Library, doi:10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x.

Meryl Brodsky : Communication and Information Studies

Hannah Chapman Tripp : Biology, Neuroscience

Carolyn Cunningham : Human Development & Family Sciences, Psychology, Sociology

Larayne Dallas : Engineering

Janelle Hedstrom : Special Education, Curriculum & Instruction, Ed Leadership & Policy ​

Susan Macicak : Linguistics

Imelda Vetter : Dell Medical School

For help in other subject areas, please see the guide to library specialists by subject .

Periodically, UT Libraries runs a workshop covering the basics and library support for literature reviews. While we try to offer these once per academic year, we find providing the recording to be helpful to community members who have missed the session. Following is the most recent recording of the workshop, Conducting a Literature Review. To view the recording, a UT login is required.

• October 26, 2022 recording
• Last Updated: Oct 26, 2022 2:49 PM
• URL: https://guides.lib.utexas.edu/literaturereviews

Literature Review and Hypotheses

• First Online: 01 January 2013

Cite this chapter

• Hagen Wülferth 2  

Part of the book series: Contributions to Management Science ((MANAGEMENT SC.))

796 Accesses

In this chapter a thorough, in-depth review of the empirical and theoretical literature on the impact of managerial discretion on performance culminates in the present study’s four hypotheses. First, the chapter begins with an extensive discussion of the definition and dimensionality of managerial discretion. Second, more than 80 empirical studies are scrutinised in order to diagnose how differences in their research designs might give rise to the contradictory positive, neutral, and negative estimated impacts of discretion on performance (i.e. the discretion puzzle). Next, there follows a systematic analysis of managerial discretion theory, principal-agent theory, and stewardship theory with respect to their units of analysis, assumptions, and predictions as well as to the construct of discretion, antecedents of discretion, and consequences of discretion. Finally, a synthesis of the empirical and theoretical literature yields four hypotheses that work towards resolving the discretion puzzle.

• Managerial Discretion Theory
• Stewardship Theory
• Principal-agent Theory
• Mekoth 2010
• Spremann 1987

These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info
• Durable hardcover edition

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Although Williamson ( 1963 ) embeds managerial discretion in an economic theory of the firm using the notion of expense preference, he does not offer a definition of the term. However, it is implicit in his work that managerial discretion is viewed as the latitude of managers to pursue their own (non-profit-maximising) objectives, particularly in terms of channelling the firm’s monopoly profits to discretionary expenses that benefit the management, such as top management compensation. Williamson ( 1963 ) finds some empirical evidence that is consistent with this view, i.e. that given opportunities for high discretion (e.g. high entry barriers and high internal representation on the board of directors), discretionary expenses tend to be higher.

Some studies on principal-agent theory explicitly mention discretion and define it in a way consistent with Hambrick and Finkelstein’s ( 1987 , pp. 371–378) definition, such as defining discretion ‘as managers’ decision-making latitude’ ( Chang and Wong 2003 , p. 2) or as ‘control rights’ (Shleifer and Vishny 1997 , p. 742).

Managerial discretion is sometimes abbreviated by the term ‘discretion’ in the present study. The term ‘middle management discretion’ used herein therefore refers to the managerial discretion of middle management.

Glaister et al. ( 2003 ) find empirical evidence that the managerial discretion a manager perceives for himself/herself may differ from the discretion that his/her superiors perceive. In particular, in their sample of UK-European joint ventures, perceptions of managerial discretion of the joint venture management differ between the joint venture management itself and the parent firms as well as between each of the parent firms.

As explained in Sects.  2.3.1 and 2.3.2 , Finkelstein and Peteraf ( 2007 , pp. 237–243) incorporate the assumption of post-contractual asymmetric information (i.e. hidden action) from principal-agent theory (e.g. Eisenhardt 1989 , p. 59; Jensen and Murphy 1990 , p. 226; Khanchel 2009 , p. 97; Levinthal 1988 , p. 153; Spremann 1987 , p. 3; Van Slyke 2007 , p. 162; Werner and Tosi 1995 , p. 1673) into managerial discretion theory. They argue that different characteristics of managerial activities affect the ability of key stakeholders (i.e. the powerful parties) to pre-specify and monitor the manager’s work, thus creating or constraining discretion. Asymmetric information (i.e. the inability to monitor the manager’s actions) therefore widens the ‘zone of acceptance of powerful parties’ (Hambrick and Finkelstein 1987 , p. 378). E.g. if top management at corporate headquarters in China could not properly monitor the plant manager’s actions, the plant manager might undertake capital investments out of self-serving interests that reduced performance, which top management might have to accept due to their inability to monitor the plant manager’s action (Spremann 1987 , p. 10).

In addition to discretion having a potentially important impact on performance (see above), it has been empirically demonstrated that discretion may significantly affect managerial power (Carpenter and Golden 1997 ), managerial compensation (Finkelstein and Boyd 1998 ; Magnan and St-Onge 1997 ; Rajagopalan and Finkelstein 1992 ; Werner and Tosi 1995 ; Wright and Kroll 2002 ; Zhang and Xie 2008 ), workers’ incentives (Groves et al. 1994 ), a successor chief executive officer’s age (Wang 2009 ), top management team tenure, trust (Perrone et al. 2003 ), strategic attention (Abrahamson and Hambrick 1997 ), environmental commitment (Aragon-Correa et al. 2004 ), pricing (Cameron 2000 ), organisational knowledge creation (Oh 2002 ), and research and development (Zhang et al. 2006a , b ).

Decentralisation of decisions rights from top management at corporate headquarters in China to the plant manager of the present study is related to the extent to which the plant manager possesses decision rights (and thus multiple courses of action) across various domains that are acceptable to top management (i.e. powerful parties). While decentralisation is therefore closely related to managerial discretion and autonomy in the present study, it tends to emphasise the objective delegation of decision rights to the plant manager rather than the perceived latitude of managerial action that defines the managerial discretion of the plant manager.

This discontinuity motivates the study’s first hypothesis (see below) and the integration of the various existing theories into a new single model for the impact of managerial discretion on performance (see Chap. 4).

Empirical studies have modelled unidimensional discretion constructs by measuring one or several proxies related to e.g. ratings of managerial power, internal representation on the board of directors, managerial stock ownership, and financial ratios (e.g. Huiyuan Chen 2006 ; Khanchel 2009 ; Yougen Li and Zhao 2004 ; Zhang and Li 2008b ; Zhang et al. 2006a , b ) as well as multiple antecedents drawn from mostly the task environment (e.g. Agarwal et al. 2009 ; Berman et al. 2005 ; Cameron 2000 ; Finkelstein and Boyd 1998 ; Finkelstein and Hambrick 1990 ; He et al. 2009 ; Magnan and St-Onge 1997 ; Rajagopalan and Finkelstein 1992 ; Williamson 1963 ). In addition, industry-level discretion has been frequently proxied in existing studies (e.g. Abrahamson and Hambrick 1997 ; Datta et al. 2003 ; Finkelstein and Hambrick 1990 ; Hambrick and Abrahamson 1995 ; Hambrick et al. 1993 ; Keegan 2006 ; Keegan and Kabanoff 2008 ; Thomas and Peyrefitte 1996 ).

The present study reviews over 80 empirical studies on managerial discretion and related phenomena, e.g. Abrahamson and Hambrick ( 1997 ), Acemoglu et al. ( 2007 ), Adams et al. ( 2005 ), Agarwal et al. ( 2009 ), Agrawal and Knoeber ( 1996 ), Aragon-Correa et al. ( 2004 ), Barnabas and Mekoth ( 2010 ), Baysinger and Butler ( 1985 ), Berger et al. ( 1997 ), Berman et al. ( 2005 ), Bloom et al. ( 2008 ), Bowen et al. ( 2008 ), Brush et al. ( 2000 ), Burkart et al. ( 1997 ), Zhang and Li ( 2008b ), Zhang and Xie (2008) , Zhang et al. ( 2006a , b ), Cameron ( 2000 ), Carpenter and Golden ( 1997 ), Caza ( 2007 ), Caza ( 2011 ), Chaganti et al. ( 1985 ), Chang and Wong (2003) , Chang and Wong ( 2004 ), Chen ( 2006 ), Cheng et al. ( 2006 ), Colombo and Delmastro ( 2004 ), Crossland and Hambrick ( 2007 ), Datta et al. ( 2003 ), Demsetz and Lehn ( 1985 ), Denis and Denis ( 1993 ), Denis et al. ( 1997 ), Donaldson and Davis ( 1991 ), Finkelstein and Boyd ( 1998 ), Finkelstein and Hambrick ( 1990 ), Gammelgaard et al. ( 2010 ), Glaister et al. ( 2003 ), Groves et al. ( 1994 ), Wang ( 2009 ), Haleblian and Finkelstein ( 1993 ), Hambrick and Abrahamson ( 1995 ), Hambrick et al. ( 1993 ), He et al. ( 2009 ), Heinecke ( 2011 ), Hutzschenreuter and Kleindienst ( 2007 ), Kayhan ( 2008 ), Keegan and Kabanoff ( 2008 ), Keegan ( 2006 ), Kesner ( 1987 ), Khanchel ( 2009 ), Lang et al. ( 1995 ), Lieberson and O’Connor ( 1972 ), López-Navarro and Camisón-Zornoza ( 2003 ), Mackey ( 2008 ), Magnan and St-Onge ( 1997 ), Manner ( 2010 ), Marin and Verdier ( 2006 ), Misangyi ( 2002 ), Oh ( 2002 ), Ongore ( 2011 ), Palmer ( 1973 ), Perrone et al. ( 2003 ), Quigley and Hambrick ( 2009 ), Rajagopalan and Finkelstein ( 1992 ), Stano ( 1976 ), Wang et al. ( 2008 ), Tang ( 2008 ), Thomas and Peyrefitte ( 1996 ), Venaik ( 1999 ), Verhoest ( 2003 ), Zhang ( 1997 ), Walters ( 1995 ), Werner and Tosi ( 1995 ), Williamson ( 1963 ), Wright and Kroll ( 2002 ), Li ( 2007 ), Xu et al. ( 2005 ), Li and Zhao ( 2004 ), Yan et al. ( 2010 ), Zahra and Stanton ( 1988 ), Zhao et al. ( 2010 ), and Zheng ( 2007 ).

As explained below, the impact of managerial discretion on performance can be decomposed into a direct effect and moderating effects, which are denoted by ‘Direct’ and ‘Moderating’ in Table  2.4 , respectively. Moreover, as the review of the literature on the impact of discretion on performance has implications for the choice of the unit of analysis of the present study, Table  2.4 includes the ‘Unit of analysis’ as an additional row.

Similar research design definitions can be found in the literature (e.g. Chui 2007 , p. 66; Punch 2005 , p. 62).

The unit of analysis of the present study (i.e. the plant manager in China) is discussed in detail in Chap. 3 .

The measures of discretion and performance in the present study are described in Sect. 4.2 and are demonstrated to exhibit high reliability and construct validity in Sects. 5.2 and 5.3 , respectively.

A discussion of alternative multivariate analysis techniques is provided in Sect. 5.1.1 , which develops its own decision-tree logic for choosing an appropriate modelling methodology for the present study.

A more complete version of Equation ( 2.1 ) is developed from the literature in Sect. 4.3 as part of the present study’s new empirical discretion model. This equation resembles Equation ( 2.1 ) when expressed in vector/matrix notation (e.g. Gentle 2007 , pp. 479–491; Harville 2008 , pp. 1–10; Knapp 2007 , pp. xxi–xxiv), but it is sufficiently general that it can be disaggregated into an arbitrary number of discretion dimensions, controls, and moderators. In contrast to the simplified Equation ( 2.1 ), the equation in Sect. 4.3 fulfils the requirements of state-of-the-art methodological research such as that all the components of the product term \( \left( {D\cdot M} \right) \) must be included in the equation in direct form (Carte and Russell 2003 , pp. 480–495; Cohen 1978 ; Cronbach 1987 ; Henseler and Fassott 2010 , pp. 718–719; Irwin and McClelland 2001 , p. 105). Applying this requirement to Equation ( 2.1 ), it would read \( P=d\cdot D+c\cdot C+m\cdot \left( {D\cdot M} \right)+q\cdot M+\varepsilon \) . The intercept term is normalised to zero.

A discussion of direct effects, control effects, mediating effects, and moderating effects is presented in Sect. 4.3 . Moreover, a discussion of control variables is included in Sect. 5.4.1 on the threat to internal validity of excluding associated variables.

While there are differences in the equations estimated across existing studies other than in the number of controls ( \( C \) ) and moderators ( \( M \) ), the overall structure of the equations remains similar to Equation ( 2.1 ). Some studies add such terms to Equation ( 2.1 ) as intercept terms [which are normalised to zero in Equation ( 2.1 )], quadratic terms so as to model non-linear effects (e.g. Huiyuan Chen 2006 ; Zhang and Li 2008b , p. 122) or lagged terms when time series are involved (e.g. Cheng et al. 2006 ; Groves et al. 1994 ). Likewise, instead of modelling moderating effects with the product term approach in Equation ( 2.1 ) (see Sect. 4.3.1 ; e.g. Carte and Russell 2003 , pp. 480–495; Chin et al. 2003 , pp. 196–200; Irwin and McClelland 2001 , p. 105), certain studies exclude the product term \( \left( {D\cdot M} \right) \) and apply the multi-group comparison approach for testing moderating effects (e.g. Arnold 1982 ; Henseler and Fassott 2010 , pp. 719–721; Rigdon et al. 1998 , p. 1; Venkatraman 1989 , p. 426). Yet even these studies can be conceptually represented by Equation ( 2.1 ), since these two approaches to modelling moderating effects resemble each other when the moderator can be sensibly dichotomised (Henseler and Fassott 2010 , p. 721; Qureshi and Compeau 2009 , p. 199).

As explained in Sect.  2.2.1 , when moderators deviate from zero, the impact of discretion on performance deviates from the direct effect of discretion ( \( d \) ) by moderating effects , which are reviewed in Sect.  2.2.4 .

In order to achieve a broad coverage of existing empirical evidence, studies are also included if they denote managerial discretion by alternative comparable terms, such as managerial autonomy (see Sect.  2.1.1 ).

It should further be noted that in addition to empirical studies that explicitly aim to measure managerial discretion or autonomy (exemplified by the references above), the contradictory evidence extends to studies that implicitly measure constructs potentially related to discretion, such as diffusion of ownership, managerial stock ownership, internal representation on the board, and other measures of board composition. Chang and Wong (2003 , p. 7) view such studies as evidence of an inconclusive relationship between discretion and performance, with the empirical findings of e.g. Donaldson and Davis ( 1991 ) and Kesner ( 1987 ) supporting a positive, those of Chaganti et al. ( 1985 ), Demsetz and Lehn ( 1985 ), and Zahra and Stanton ( 1988 ) supporting a neutral, and those of Baysinger and Butler ( 1985 ) and Palmer ( 1973 ) supporting a negative relationship.

The scatter plot format in Fig.  2.1 is applied in Sects.  2.3 and 2.4 below in order to link the theories to the empirical evidence on the impact of discretion on performance and derive the present study’s Hypothesis 4.

Non-zero values of a control variable ( \( C\ne 0 \) ) simply shift the dotted lines in Fig.  2.1 upwards or downwards (provided there is a non-zero control effect, i.e. \( c\ne 0 \) ) without affecting the slopes of the lines. By contrast, non-zero values of a moderator variable ( \( M\ne 0 \) ) alter the slope and therefore tilt the dotted lines (if \( m\ne 0 \) ).

It should be noted that due to their observational cross-sectional designs, the existing empirical studies cannot unequivocally demonstrate that additional discretion causes an increase or decrease in performance but rather only make statements regarding association that may be consistent with causality (e.g. Caza 2007 , p. 46; Finkelstein and Hambrick 1990 , p. 500; Granger 1969 ; Sánchez 2008 , p. 5; Simon 1954 , pp. 477–478; Wagner 2002 , pp. 287–292; see Sect. 5.4.1 ).

For example, if two different studies adopt two different measures of discretion, each of which taps into a distinct dimension of discretion, then one study might find a positive and the other a negative impact of discretion on performance, provided the distinct discretion dimensions have different performance impacts.

As noted in Chap. 3 , a unit of analysis is also defined in terms of time (Northrop and Arsenault 2007 , p. 214).

As explained in Chap. 3 , there are tens of thousands of plant managers in China alone (Guojia tongji ju [National Bureau of Statistics] 2007 , 14–1, 14–2, 14–18). With plant managers being but one example of middle managers, this translates into an even larger number of middle managers in organisations worldwide.

Relating these measures of discretion to the dimensions of discretion is an important step in the present study’s attempt to work towards resolving the discretion puzzle and leads to the formulation of Hypothesis 1.

Acemoglu et al. ( 2007 ) measure autonomy for British firms only in the domain of employment decisions and autonomy for French firms only in the domain of investment decisions in two out of their three datasets.

For instance, Caza ( 2007 , pp. 14–16) combines indicators on the manager’s discretion in training resources, hiring, firing, and assigning specific tasks into a unidimensional discretion construct to investigate its impact on performance, although he later finds that discretion covers multiple dimensions (pp. 26–82).

For example, Agarwal et al. ( 2009 , p. 2221) proxy managerial discretion by the length of lockup, notice, and redemption periods for the hedge funds under investigation.

Thomas and Peyrefitte ( 1996 ) investigate the impact of discretion on performance using Finkelstein and Hambrick’s ( 1990 ) industry-level discretion, which has been further advanced in subsequent studies (e.g. Abrahamson and Hambrick 1997 ; Datta et al. 2003 ; Hambrick and Abrahamson 1995 ; Hambrick et al. 1993 ; Keegan 2006 ; Keegan and Kabanoff 2008 ).

The value of the review of existing measures of discretion in the literature (summarised in Table  2.5 ) extends beyond demonstrating that the measures of discretion have differed starkly in the literature. Relating these measures of discretion to the dimensions of discretion is an important step in the present study’s attempt to work towards resolving the discretion puzzle and leads to the formulation of Hypothesis 1 in Sect.  2.2.4 . Based on the test results of Hypothesis 1 (see Sect. 6.2.1 ), Sect. 7.3.1 generates implications on how these measures of discretion in Table  2.5 might be flawed and partly responsible for the discretion puzzle. This leads to recommendations on how discretion measures should be built and interpreted in future research.

Section  2.2.1 provides an explanation of these two aspects of the modelling methodology.

For instance, Zhang and Li ( 2008b , p. 122) as well as Chen ( 2006 ) include a quadratic term so as to model non-linear effects, i.e. an inversed U-shaped relationship between discretion and performance, with discretion initially increasing and eventually decreasing performance.

Most of the studies above differ from each other in terms of both their unit of analysis and their discretion measure, and in some cases further differ in terms of their performance measure and modelling methodology. When attempting to hold the unit of analysis constant by comparing only studies on top management in China, it is found that the contradictory empirical results remain—with Chang and Wong ( 2003 , 2004 ) and Zhang ( 1997 ) finding a positive, Li and Zhao ( 2004 ) finding a neutral, and Xu et al. ( 2005 ) finding a negative direct effect of managerial discretion on performance. While this hints that controlling for the unit of analysis in terms of level of management (i.e. top management) and geography (i.e. China) does not (on its own) account for the literature’s contradictory results, such inferences are hindered by the fact that the studies’ research designs still differ in a number of other ways (e.g. discretion measures and modelling methodologies).

It should be noted that as explained in Box 1.1 in Sect. 1.2 on the delimitations of the research objective, the present study’s approach is designed as a proof-by-counter-example and is subject to the caveat of observational cross-sectional studies in terms of demonstrating causality (e.g. Caza 2007 , p. 46; Finkelstein and Hambrick 1990 , p. 500; Granger 1969 ; Sánchez 2008 , p. 5; Simon 1954 , pp. 477–478; Wagner 2002 , pp. 287–292; see Sect. 5.4.1 ). In simple terms, if it is found in the instance of the present study that discretion is multidimensional, this could constitute a proof-by-counter-example that discretion is not unidimensional in every case. While this does not prove that a unidimensional measure of discretion is flawed in the existing studies and responsible for the discretion puzzle, it would offer evidence that this is a possibility and warrants further investigation.

From an empirical point of view, differences in the measure of performance across studies could likewise offer a potential explanation for the divergent empirical results on the impact of discretion on performance. Some of the existing literature can be interpreted in favour of the hypothesis that differences in measures of performance may help explain differences in empirical results. For example, Khanchel ( 2009 ) finds a significantly positive impact of discretion on return on assets (ROA) but insignificant results when measuring performance by Tobin’s Q . Likewise, Wang et al. ( 2008 ) find a positive impact of discretion on sales efficiency but a negative impact on strategic partnership with the global customers. While this potential explanation lies beyond the scope of the present study, future studies might extend the present study’s approach of distinguishing measures in a more granular way and formulate a hypothesis analogous to Hypothesis 1 for testing whether differences in performance measures help explain the discretion puzzle.

As explained in Sect.  2.1.2 , most existing studies have adopted unidimensional measures of discretion, meaning they have not exhibited sufficient granularity to allow for a multidimensional measure of discretion (e.g. Agarwal et al. 2009 ; Barnabas and Mekoth 2010 ; Berman et al. 2005 ; Bloom et al. 2009a , b ; Cameron 2000 ; Caza 2007 ; 2011 ; Chang and Wong 2003 ; Chen 2006 ; Cheng et al. 2006 ; Finkelstein and Boyd 1998 ; Finkelstein and Hambrick 1990 ; Gammelgaard et al. 2010 ; He et al. 2009 ; Khanchel 2009 ; Li and Zhao 2004 ; Magnan and St-Onge 1997 ; Marin and Verdier 2006 ; Rajagopalan and Finkelstein 1992 ; Williamson 1963 ; Zhang and Li 2008b ; Zhang et al. 2006a , b ).

As explained above, the reviewed empirical studies have also differed from each other in terms of aspects of the modelling methodology other than moderator variables, such as multivariate analysis techniques. Future studies could investigate these differences as potential explanations of the discretion puzzle.

This equivalence can be understood by drawing on Chap. 4 . With the multi-group comparison approach for testing moderating effects (see Sect. 4.3.1 ; e.g. Arnold 1982 ; Henseler and Fassott 2010 , pp. 719–721; Rigdon et al. 1998 , p. 1; Venkatraman 1989 , p. 426), Hypothesis 2 is tested by separately estimating an equation similar to Equation ( 2.1 ) in Sect.  2.2.1 for the two firm type groups, which yields a separate direct effect of discretion on performance for the unit of analysis of Chinese firms ( \( {d^{Chinese }} \) ) and a separate one for multinationals ( \( {d^{Multi. }} \) ). Testing whether firm type affects the impact of discretion on performance then tests whether the difference between \( {d^{Chinese }} \) and \( {d^{Multi. }} \) is significant, and this difference is the moderating effect of firm type (see Sect. 4.3.2 ). In principle, the product term approach for testing moderating effects (see Sect. 4.3.1 ; e.g. Carte and Russell 2003 , pp. 480–495; Chin et al. 2003 , pp. 196–200; Irwin and McClelland 2001 , p. 105) can also be applied for testing Hypothesis 2, whereby firm type is coded as a dichotomous categorical variable by using a dummy moderator (Henseler and Fassott 2010 , p. 721; Qureshi and Compeau 2009 , p. 199). With reference to Equation ( 2.1 ) in Sect.  2.2.1 , \( M=0 \) could represent multinationals and \( M=1 \) Chinese firms, so the moderating effect \( m \) would measure the difference in the impact of discretion on performance between a Chinese firm and a multinational, and testing for \( m\ne 0 \) would test Hypothesis 2.

Based on the discussion in this section, the existing empirical evidence on moderating effects ( \( m \) ) can now be interpreted as showing that the way in which a manager uses his/her discretion can depend on various influences on managers—in terms of such statistically significant moderators as managerial experience (Caza 2007 ), managerial incentives (Cheng et al. 2006 ), top management pay gap (Zhang and Li 2008b ), corporate control via performance monitoring, incentive systems, and social integration (Wang et al. 2008 ), export joint venture group composition (López-Navarro and Camisón-Zornoza 2003 ), and market competition (Zhao et al. 2010 ). For some of the moderators tested in the literature, moderating effects were found to be insignificant, such as managerial education, managerial commitment, and the number of similar units (Caza 2011 ), ownership concentration (Yougen Li and Zhao 2004 ), and the organisational type of state-owned enterprises in China (Xu et al. 2005 ), i.e. employee-owned stock cooperatives, limited liability companies, and limited liability stock companies.

The theories can be applied to study a wide variety of topics other than the impact of managerial discretion on performance, such as a range of topics in economics and finance for principal-agent theory. However, as these applications do not contribute to fulfilling the present study’s research objective, they are not included in this literature review. Instead, the theories are reviewed only with respect to what is relevant to this study.

As described in Sect.  2.3.1 , managerial discretion theory was originally developed as a reconciliation of population ecology (e.g. Aldrich 1979 ; Baum 1996 ; Baum and Amburgey 2002 ; Carroll 1988 ; Freeman et al. 1983 ; Hannan and Freeman 1977 , 1984 ; Singh and Lumsden 1990 ; Tushman and Romanelli 1985 ; Zohar and Luria 2005 ) and strategic choice theory (e.g. Child 1972 , 1997 , 2002 ; Child et al. 2003 ; Elbanna and Child 2007 ; Hitt and Tyler 1991 ; Hrebiniak and Joyce 1985 ; Judge and Zeithaml 1992 ; Marlin et al. 1994 ; Miles and Snow 1978 ; Stienstra et al. 2004 ).

As explained in Sect.  2.3.2 , it is possible to assume that the principal is less performance-maximising than the agent, in which case managerial discretion may positively affect performance ( Chang and Wong 2003 , pp. 1–7). However, this assumption is rarely made in principal-agent theory (Thomsen and Pedersen 2000 , p. 690). The literature on principal-agent theory therefore generally contends that managerial discretion has a negative direct effect on performance (e.g. Caza 2007 , p. 10; Caza 2011 ; Chang and Wong 2003 , p. 7; Davis et al. 1997b , p. 38; Hutzschenreuter and Kleindienst 2007 , p. 4; Jensen and Murphy 1990 ; Zhao et al. 2010 ).

For instance, Hannan and Freeman ( 1977 , p. 957) postulate that ‘there are very strong inertial pressures on structure arising both from internal arrangements (e.g., internal politics) and the environment (e.g., public legitimation of organizational activity).’

These contingencies affecting strategic choices and thus organisational outcomes are investigated in upper-echelon theory . The theory postulates that strategic choices affecting organisational outcomes are reflections of the cognitive bases and values (i.e. knowledge, ordering, and preferences) of influential top managers, since under the assumption of bounded rationality (Simon 1957b ) the managers’ cognitive bases and values are pivotal for processing the complex information from environmental and organisational stimuli (Aragon-Correa et al. 2004 ; Galavan 2005 ; Galavan et al. 2009 ; Hambrick et al. 1993 ; Hambrick and Mason 1984 ; Hutzschenreuter and Kleindienst 2007 ; Manner 2010 ; Pegels et al. 2000 ). It is argued that these cognitive bases and values can be measured by observable managerial background characteristics (e.g. age, education, and socioeconomic roots), and indeed it has been confirmed that many of these demographics are empirically related to strategic choices and performance (see Carpenter et al. 2004 ; Hambrick 2007 ).

Outside the scope of managerial discretion theory, notions similar to managerial discretion have been applied to non-managerial units of analysis. For example, the job design literature (e.g. Hackman et al. 1975 ) is concerned with the autonomy of workers from a motivational perspective (i.e. their discretion relative to management). Moreover, the Nobel Laureates Kydland and Prescott ( 1977 ) have derived far-reaching implications for the design of macroeconomic policy from their analysis of the discretion of policymakers.

In addition to such harder organisational antecedents as organisational size and age, softer antecedents have been put forward in the literature. For example, Cennamo et al. ( 2009 ) contend that top management may enlarge their managerial discretion by pursuing a broader stakeholder management orientation.

As defined by the research objective in Sect. 1.2 , the dynamics of discretion (i.e. the analysis of discretion over time, such as differentiating between short-term and long-term effects) are still at an early stage of research in the literature (e.g. Finkelstein and Peteraf 2007 , pp. 243–245; Hutzschenreuter and Kleindienst 2007 , p. 1; Kayhan 2008 , pp. 1–6) and, in line with the present study’s observational cross-sectional research design, are not addressed.

Finkelstein and Hambrick ( 1990 , p. 488) define ‘the extent to which a firm’s performance is similar to the average for the industry’ as performance conformity, with the opposite denoted by performance extremeness (Quigley and Hambrick 2009 , p. 3) or performance variability (Misangyi 2002 , pp. 36–37). For instance, for top management, chief executives with the discretion to shape their company’s strategy might make radical changes to strategies and thereby impact on performance more strongly than chief executives whose discretion is highly constrained, as in regulated industries. For middle management, a plant manager whose discretion is constrained to making capital investments of only say 1,000 RMB has less latitude to affect performance through capital investments than a plant manager whose discretion is set to 1,000,000 RMB.

In addition to performance, it has been demonstrated that discretion may exhibit significant relations to such consequences as managerial power, managerial compensation, workers’ incentives, a successor chief executive officer’s age, top management team tenure, trust, strategic attention, environmental commitment, pricing, organisational knowledge creation, and research and development (see references above).

New institutional economics, including principal-agent theory (see above) and transaction cost economics (Argyres and Liebeskind 1999 ; Argyres and Mayer 2007 ; Bercovitz et al. 2006 ; Coase 1937 , 1960 ; Williamson 1985 , 1991 , 1996 ), evolved as a critique of neoclassical economics by relaxing first-best assumptions, such as regarding information (i.e. asymmetric information in principal-agent theory and information impactedness in transaction cost economics) or bounded rationality (Pascha and Storz 2005 , p. 16).

While the assumptions of principal-agent theory can differ in detail between differing models in the literature (e.g. with assumptions at times also including bounded rationality and risk aversion), assumptions 1 and 2 are central to principal-agent theory and tend to be common across differing models (Eisenhardt 1989 , pp. 58–59; Levinthal 1988 , p. 153; Spremann 1987 , p. 3). In addition to these two central assumptions, Sect.  2.3.2.2 discusses two further assumptions commonly made by principal-agent theorists when predicting the impact of managerial discretion on performance (i.e. assumption 3: the agent’s managerial action is rational in terms of tending to produce the outcomes that the agent intends; assumption 4: the agent’s interests are less aligned with performance maximisation than the principal’s interests; e.g. Albanese et al. 1997 , p. 610; Chang and Wong 2003 ; Davis et al. 1997b , pp. 20–22; Eisenhardt 1989 ; Jensen 1986 ; Jensen and Meckling 1976 ; Jensen and Murphy 1990 ; Shleifer and Vishny 1997 ; Spremann 1987 ; Thomsen and Pedersen 2000 ; Werner and Tosi 1995 , p. 1673).

For example, in Spremann’s ( 1987 ) principal-agent model total output and thus the principal’s welfare are dependent on the agent’s hidden efforts as well as some exogenous risk. This implies that the principal cannot fully distinguish between low effort on the part of the agent and bad luck on the part of exogenous risk, so the asymmetric information (hidden effort) gives the agent managerial discretion to pursue his/her own interests.

Although the likelihood that the principal’s and agent’s interests diverge is substantial, the interests may be aligned in some cases, whereby the agency problem is avoided and control mechanisms become unnecessary (Davis et al. 1997b , p. 22). Nevertheless, as the interests of the agent are difficult for the principal to judge ex ante (Williamson 1985 ), principal-agent theory prudently recommends imposing control mechanisms to limit potential losses. Internal control mechanisms are in general preferable to external control mechanisms, since external control mechanisms such as acquisitions and divestures tend to come at a higher expense to the principal’s utility (Walsh and Seward 1990 , pp. 444–445). The extent to which agents fail to experience discipline from this full range of control mechanisms has been termed entrenchment (Berger et al. 1997 , p. 1411).

As noted above, in Spremann’s ( 1987 ) principal-agent model, low output (i.e. low performance) can be caused by either low effort on the part of the agent or bad luck due to exogenous risk. As the principal cannot fully monitor the agent’s effort and thus cannot fully hold the agent accountable for his/her actions, this asymmetric information (hidden effort) gives the agent managerial discretion to pursue his/her own interests.

For example, suppose top management at corporate headquarters in China (principal) could initially not fully monitor the plant manager’s (agent’s) managerial activities, such as his/her capital investments, perhaps due to their complex, uncertain or unobservable nature. The plant manager might then have the discretion to undertake certain capital investments out of self-serving interests and against the interests of top management. The nature of the plant manager’s managerial activities would thus constitute an antecedent of discretion. Now suppose that top management imposed stricter monitoring control mechanisms , such as audits and performance evaluations that made it easier to monitor the plant manager’s activities. Top management would then be more able to hold the plant manager accountable for the effects of his/her capital investments and not every capital investment would fall into their zone of acceptance (Hambrick and Finkelstein 1987 , p. 378). The monitoring control mechanisms would thus reduce the choices available to the plant manager for making investments that are acceptable to top management in China—i.e. they would reduce the manager’s discretion.

For example, when top management at corporate headquarters in China (i.e. the principal) is more interested in high performance than the plant manager (i.e. the agent), then the plant manager might use the additional discretion to make capital investments that suit his/her personal agenda at the expense of performance.

Even when accepting a close alignment of the principal’s and agent’s interests, the impact of discretion on performance may not be insignificant due to the additional theoretical mechanism described in Sect.  2.3.3 .

As explained in Sect.  2.3.3 , stewardship theory proposes an additional theoretical mechanism which can help explain a positive impact of discretion on performance. After discussing this mechanism, Sect.  2.3.3 correspondingly extends this potential explanation of the contradictory evidence of the discretion puzzle.

As explained in Box 2.1, it is possible to assume that the principal is less performance-maximising than the agent, in which case managerial discretion may positively affect performance ( Chang and Wong 2003 , pp. 1–7). However, this assumption is rarely made in principal-agent theory (Thomsen and Pedersen 2000 , p. 690). Nevertheless, it should be noted that the principal-agent literature recognises that maintaining a certain level of performance might be in the manager’s own best interest due to ‘both the discipline and opportunities provided by the markets for their services, both within and outside of the firm’ (Fama 1980 , p. 289).

As noted above, Sect.  2.4.3 explains that this prediction of principal-agent theory ( \( d<0 \) ) is recorded as the principal-agent hypothesis for Hypothesis 4, which is indicated on the downwards-sloping line in Fig.  2.4 .

As noted above, if one instead assumes that the agent’s (i.e. plant manager’s) interests are more aligned with maximising performance than those of the principal (i.e. top management at corporate headquarters in China), then granting discretion might increase performance (e.g. Chang and Wong 2003 ). The plant manager would still use discretion opportunistically to produce the outcomes that he/she desired, but when assuming that these agent-desired outcomes are more performance-maximising than those of the principal, then this self-interest seeking behaviour of the agent would increase performance (albeit to the discontent of the principal).

Moderating effects were formally introduced in Sect.  2.2.1 and are discussed at length in Sect. 4.3 . It was shown that the relationship between discretion and performance is often modelled by an equation similar to \( P=d\cdot D+c\cdot C+m\cdot \left( {D\cdot M} \right)+\varepsilon \) (see Equation ( 2.1 ) in Sect.  2.2.1 ), which is depicted by the downwards-sloping line in Fig.  2.4 (when the control variable \( C \) and the moderator variable \( M \) are normalised to zero). By partial differentiation, the total impact of discretion on performance was derived as \( {{{\partial P}} \left/ {{\partial D}} \right.}=d+m\cdot M \) (see Equation ( 2.2 ) in Sect.  2.2.1 ), i.e. the sum of the direct effect of discretion on performance ( \( d \) ) and the moderating effect ( \( m \) ) multiplied by the moderator variable’s value ( \( M \) ) (see Sect. 4.3.2 on comparative statics; e.g. Aiken and West 1991 , p. 37; Dowling 2000 , pp. 284–291; Finney et al. 1984 ; Henseler and Fassott 2010 , p. 728; Hirschey 2009 , p. 99). Hence, the slope of the line in Fig.  2.4 (i.e. \( {{{\partial P}} \left/ {{\partial D}} \right.}=d+m\cdot M \) ) is equal to the direct effect of discretion on performance ( \( d \) ) when the moderator variable is zero ( \( M=0 \) ) and is adjusted upwards or downwards to the extent that the moderator diverges from zero. Moderating effects ( \( m \) ) therefore adjust the impact of discretion on performance upwards or downwards beyond the direct effect ( \( d \) ) and thus pivot the line in Fig.  2.4 , as indicated by the curved arrow therein.

For example, when the plant manager’s relative interest in performance-maximisation ( \( M \) ) increased (whether due to natural predisposition or compensation control mechanisms), the impact of discretion on performance ( \( {{{\partial P}} \left/ {{\partial D}} \right.}=d+m\cdot M \) ) could become less negative, because the plant manager would then use discretion to produce outcomes that were to a lesser extent harmful to organisational performance.

Hypothesis 2 and Hypothesis 3 regarding the respective moderating effects of firm type and firm size on the impact of discretion on performance (see Sect.  2.4.2 ) are methodologically motivated by the discussion of moderating effects in Box 2.2. In particular, principal-agent theory was shown to imply that one moderator variable (i.e. the agent’s interests) can moderate both the direct effect of discretion on performance (i.e. \( d>0 \) versus \( d<0 \) ) and the moderating effects of other moderator variables (i.e. \( m>0 \) versus \( m<0 \) ). In parallel, the present study specifies that one moderator variable (i.e. firm type) can moderate both the direct effect of discretion on performance and the moderating effect of firm size (see Sect.  2.4.2 ).

It was explained above that in the extreme case where the agent’s interest in performance surpasses the principal’s interest in performance (i.e. \( M \) becomes large), the total impact of discretion on performance might become positive. This is consistent with the described moderating effect, since as \( M \) becomes large for a firm in a sample with a highly performance-aligned agent, the positive moderating effect ( \( m \) ) in this firm becomes so large that it outweighs the overall negative direct effect of discretion on performance ( \( d<0 \) ) estimated for the overall sample, i.e. \( {{{\partial P}} \left/ {{\partial D}} \right.}=d+m\cdot M>0 \) becomes positive for the performance-aligned agent despite \( d<0 \) .

Algebraically, the impact of discretion on performance is \( {{{\partial P}} \left/ {{\partial D}} \right.}=d+m\cdot M=d+m\cdot 0=d \) with weaker monitoring ( \( M=0 \) ) and \( {{{\partial P}} \left/ {{\partial D}} \right.}=d+m\cdot M=d+m\cdot 1=d+m \) with better monitoring ( \( M=1 \) ). The moderating effect on the impact of discretion on performance from imposing better monitoring (i.e. from increasing \( M \) from \( M=0 \) to \( M=1 \) ) is thus equal to \( m \) (i.e. the difference between these two equations). Hence, the impact of discretion will be less negative with better monitoring to the extent that the moderating effect is positive ( \( m>0 \) ).

This three-way interaction (Henseler and Fassott 2010 , p. 722) in the sense that the agent’s interests influence whether ability, knowledge, and information improve or dampen the impact of discretion on performance is consistent with seemingly opposing views in the literature. Hayek ( 1945 , pp. 524–526) advocates extending discretion downwards along the line of control (i.e. decentralisation) on the premise that this may facilitate the use of everyone’s specialised knowledge. On a similar note, Li ( 2007 ) argues that the board of directors (i.e. principal) may hire a general manager (i.e. agent) as the manager possesses managerial expertise. Caza ( 2007 , p. 13) also contends that extending discretion may improve performance only if the manager’s ability (e.g. education and experience) is sufficient so as to use discretion effectively for improving performance. However, Chang and Wong (2003 , p. 24) explain that managers ‘would not make productive use of their expertise to improve firm performance if their self-interests were not somehow tied to firm performance.’ In other words, only if a manager’s interests are sufficiently aligned with improving performance may the manager’s ability, knowledge, and information positively moderate the way managers use discretion to affect performance. If instead the manager’s interests are poorly aligned with performance, then greater discretion that allows managers to ‘respond more quickly to changing circumstances’ may be abused by the manager so as to fulfil his/her private interests at the expense of those of the principal (Cheng et al. 2006 , pp. 341–342).

It should be noted that the moderating effect of the agent’s interests could also be modelled as a continuous (rather than a dichotomous) moderator variable. However, the dichotomy of the multi-group comparison approach is chosen instead in order to ensure continuity with the present study’s new model in Chap. 4 .

Assumption 2 and assumption 3 from principal-agent theory are similar in stewardship theory, namely that the principal cannot fully monitor the steward’s actions (i.e. asymmetric information) and that the steward’s managerial action is rational in terms of tending to produce the outcomes that the steward intends (e.g. Davis et al. 1997a , p. 612; Davis et al. 1997b , pp. 23–24; Fox and Hamilton 1994 , p. 78).

It was shown in Box 2.1 in Sect.  2.3.2.2 that the nature of the impact of discretion on performance may depend on whose interests are more performance-maximising (assumption 4), which is further discussed below.

For example, consider granting a plant manager additional discretion for making capital investments, i.e. increasing the maximum capital investment that the plant manager (i.e. agent or steward) can undertake without prior authorisation from top management at corporate headquarters in China (i.e. principal) from 10,000 RMB to 20,000 RMB. With the self-serving utility function assumed in principal-agent theory (see the first assumption above), if the plant manager’s and top management’s interests were equally performance-maximising (see the fourth assumption above), then capital investments with the same performance consequences would be predicted with and without the higher discretion (i.e. whether or not the plant manager needed to seek prior authorisation from top management for the investments between 10,000 RMB to 20,000 RMB). With the pro-organisational utility function assumed in stewardship theory, however, even if interests were equally performance-maximising, then the higher discretion would strengthen the plant manager’s motivation (e.g. to make greater efforts to choose investments wisely) and thus would be predicted to boost performance .

This is the additional theoretical mechanism of stewardship theory which was mentioned in Sect.  2.3.2.2 to help explain a positive impact of discretion on performance.

Box 2.3 in Sect.  2.3.3.2 creates transparency on how two theoretical mechanisms translate the assumptions of stewardship theory into this predicted positive impact of discretion on performance.

For instance, Donaldson and Davis ( 1991 ) recommend having a chief executive officer (CEO) who is a steward as the chair of the board of directors, since this empowering governance mechanism grants the CEO greater discretion to shape strategy in the company’s best interest without fear of interference by an outside chair.

The slopes of the lines measure the impact of discretion on performance (i.e. \( {{{\partial P}} \left/ {{\partial D}} \right.}=d+m\cdot M \) ) and are therefore equal to the direct effect of discretion on performance ( \( d \) ) when the moderator variable is zero ( \( M=0 \) ), and are adjusted upwards or downwards to the extent that the moderator diverges from zero.

As explained in Sect.  2.3.1 , managerial discretion theory does not make specific predictions regarding the nature of the impact of managerial discretion on performance (i.e. whether it is positive, neutral or negative; e.g. Adams et al. 2005 ; Crossland and Hambrick 2007 ; Finkelstein and Hambrick 1990 ; Hambrick and Finkelstein 1987 ; Misangyi 2002 ; Quigley and Hambrick 2009 ; Tang 2008 ; Zhao et al. 2010 ).

This extends the attempted explanation derived from principal-agent theory in Box 2.1 in Sect.  2.3.2.2 .

This reasoning resonates with Aghion and Tirole’s ( 1997 ) view shared by e.g. Xiaoyang Li ( 2007 ) and Xu et al. ( 2005 ) that extending discretion downwards along the line of control (decentralisation) can raise the agent’s initiative to acquire productive information and facilitate his/her participation in the contractual relationship.

As stated earlier, moderator variables ( \( M \) ) with moderating effects ( \( m \) ) may influence the extent to which the impact of discretion on performance ( \( {{{\partial P}} \left/ {{\partial D}} \right.}=d+m\cdot M \) ) is positive or negative, or equivalently, the slopes of the lines in Fig.  2.5 ( \( {{{\partial P}} \left/ {{\partial D}} \right.}=d+m\cdot M \) ). Strong moderating effects may therefore help explain whether discretion increases ( \( {{{\partial P}} \left/ {{\partial D}} \right.}>0 \) ) or decreases performance ( \( {{{\partial P}} \left/ {{\partial D}} \right.}<0 \) ), or equivalently, whether the line in Fig.  2.5 is upwards-sloping or downwards-sloping. Moderating effects might thus potentially explain in which cases (i.e. for which values of \( M \) ) the predictions of stewardship theory versus principal-agent theory hold true, thus paving a way for reconciling the theories and resolving the discretion puzzle.

Initial research on stewardship theory contrasted principal-agent theory and stewardship theory (e.g. Donaldson and Davis 1989 , 1991 , 1994 ; Fox and Hamilton 1994 ) and tended to assume that stewardship theory is correct and principal-agent theory is incorrect (see Davis et al. 1997b , p. 21). The seminal research by Davis et al. ( 1997b ) from which moderating effects are derived herein no longer assumes that only stewardship theory is correct but rather attempts to reconcile the two theories’ differences by delineating the conditions (i.e. the moderator variables) under which each of the theories is necessary.

As explained above in the discussion on antecedents , stewardship theorists refer to these variables as ‘antecedents in the prediction of stewardship versus agency relationships’ (Davis et al. 1997b , p. 37).

If the choice between stewardship and agency behaviour (which is argued to depend on these variables) is viewed as a binary choice, then these variables represent moderator variables that switch between a positive (stewardship) and a negative (agency) impact of discretion on performance. If instead the choice is viewed as lying on a continuum between stewardship and agency behaviour (e.g. Albanese et al. 1997 , p. 610), then these variables can have continuous moderating effects. The more the variables match the assumptions of stewardship rather than agency theory, the more positive the impact of discretion on performance is predicted to be. As these moderators work via altering the manager’s natural predisposition to performance maximisation, they may moderate the impact of other moderators (e.g. monitoring control mechanisms)—which was discussed in Sect.  2.3.2 in terms of three-way interaction (e.g. Henseler and Fassott 2010 , p. 722) and enter into the study’s new discretion model in Chap. 4 .

For example, suppose the manager acted as a steward but was controlled by the principal as if he/she were an agent, e.g. by harshly constraining the steward’s discretion through control mechanisms. The steward might then feel demotivated due to the theoretical mechanism related to motivation described earlier and potentially engage in antiorganisational behaviour (Argyris 1964 ; Fleishman and Harris 1962 ; Herzberg et al. 1959 ). Likewise, in the other type of mixed-motive relationship, the ‘principal is likely to feel betrayed and angry and may increase controls, withdraw from the situation, or attempt to remove the manager’ (Davis et al. 1997b , p. 40).

Section 1.1 on the research gap mentions this combination of principal-agent theory and stewardship theory as one of the existing attempts to reconcile the relevant theories. The other attempts mentioned in Sect. 1.1 relate to combinations of managerial discretion theory and principal-agent theory (e.g. Caza 2007 ; 2011 ; Finkelstein and Peteraf 2007 ), which have been discussed in Sect.  2.3.2 .

A subset of these variables has been empirically investigated (e.g. Caza 2007 ; 2011 ; Mills and Keast 2009 ; Van Slyke 2007 ; Vargas Sánchez 2001 , 2004 ). For agrarian cooperative societies in Spain (Vargas Sánchez 2001 ) and Wales (Vargas Sánchez 2004 ), for example, a subset of the psychological characteristics and situational characteristics are empirically confirmed as determining agency versus stewardship relationships of chairmen and managers. For Spain, individuals motivated by higher-order needs as well as intrinsic needs were found to be more likely to develop steward relationships, as were individuals who tended to use personal power rather than institutional power (Vargas Sánchez 2001 ). For Wales, by contrast, stewardship relationships were predicted by greater identification with the organisation and to a lesser extent by a lower power distance (Vargas Sánchez 2004 ). The other tested factors, such as value commitment, involvement-orientation, and collectivist cultures received no empirical support in either study. In addition, Caza ( 2007 ) tests for moderating effects of managerial commitment (i.e. identification ; see the psychological characteristics above) on the impact of discretion on performance, but finds no significant evidence. By contrast, Van Slyke ( 2007 ) finds a positive association between the risk that either of the parties perceives and the extent to which agency behaviour is adopted (see the expectations above).

A thorough discussion of the research gap and research objective can be found in Sects. 1.1 and 1.2 .

As mentioned above, the present study’s discretion puzzle relates to the managerial discretion of managers in organisations and is therefore distinct from the puzzle of discretion (Pratt and Sossin 2009 ) that concerns judicial discretion in law.

Managerial discretion theory (e.g. Abrahamson and Hambrick 1997 ; Berman et al. 2005 ; Carpenter and Golden 1997 ; Caza 2007 ; 2011 ; Huiyuan Chen 2006 ; Crossland 2007 ; Crossland and Hambrick 2007 ; Datta et al. 2003 ; Finkelstein and Boyd 1998 ; Finkelstein and Hambrick 1990 ; Finkelstein and Peteraf 2007 ; Haleblian and Finkelstein 1993 ; Hambrick and Abrahamson 1995 ; Hambrick and Finkelstein 1987 ; Hambrick et al. 1993 ; Hutzschenreuter and Kleindienst 2007 ; Keegan 2006 ; Keegan and Kabanoff 2008 ; Key 2002 ; Yougen Li and Zhao 2004 ; Magnan and St-Onge 1997 ; Quigley and Hambrick 2009 ; Rajagopalan and Finkelstein 1992 ; Thomas and Peyrefitte 1996 ; Zhang and Li 2008b ; Zhang et al. 2006a , b ).

Principal-agent theory (e.g. Agrawal and Knoeber 1996 ; Baysinger and Butler 1985 ; Berger et al. 1997 ; Brush et al. 2000 ; Chang and Wong 2003 ; Childs and Mauer 2008 ; Denis et al. 1997 ; Eisenhardt 1989 ; Fama 1980 ; Fama and Jensen 1983a , b ; He et al. 2009 ; Jensen 1986 ; Jensen and Meckling 1976 ; Jensen and Murphy 1990 ; Jensen and Ruback 1983 ; Laffont and Martimort 2002 ; Lang et al. 1995 ; Levinthal 1988 ; Ongore 2011 ; Shleifer and Vishny 1997 ; Spremann 1987 ; Thépot 2007 ; Thomsen and Pedersen 2000 ; Walters 1995 ; Wang et al. 2008 ; Weidenbaum and Jensen 1993 ; Werner and Tosi 1995 , p. 1673; Xu et al. 2005 ; Zou 1989 ).

Stewardship theory (e.g. Albanese et al. 1997 ; Arthurs and Busenitz 2003 ; Corbetta and Salvato 2004 ; Davis et al. 1997a , b ; Dicke and Ott 2002 ; Donaldson 1990 ; Donaldson and Davis 1989 , 1991 , 1993 , 1994 ; Eddleston and Kellermanns 2007 ; Fox and Hamilton 1994 ; Lane et al. 1999 ; Liu and Cai 2004 ; Miller and Le Breton-Miller 2006 ; Mills and Keast 2009 ; Muth and Donaldson 1998 ; Salvato 2002 ; Tian and Lau 2001 ; Tosi et al. 2003 ; Van Slyke 2007 ; Vargas Sánchez 2001 , 2004 , 2005 ; Zahra 2003 ).

More specifically, the research objective is to establish that the failure of the extant literature to account for granularity in the way that managers use discretion is a potential cause of the discretion puzzle—and that theories and empirical studies must therefore differentiate discretion’s impact by this granularity (i.e. by dimensions of discretion and influences on managers) to resolve the discretion puzzle (see Sect. 1.2 ).

For example, a given manager might use additional discretion for making capital investments in a way that improves performance but use additional discretion for hiring workers in a way that reduces performance. According to this postulate, discretion could have positive, neutral, and also negative impacts on performance depending on the dimensions of discretion (e.g. capital investment discretion versus hiring discretion), firm type (e.g. Chinese firms versus multinationals), and firm size (e.g. 150 versus 5,000 employees).

It should be noted that as explained in Box 1.1 in Sect. 1.2 on the delimitations of the research objective, the present study’s approach is designed as a proof-by-counter-example and is subject to the caveat of observational cross-sectional studies in terms of demonstrating causality (e.g. Caza 2007 , p. 46; Finkelstein and Hambrick 1990 , p. 500; Granger 1969 ; Sánchez 2008 , p. 5; Simon 1954 , pp. 477–478; Wagner 2002 , pp. 287–292; see Sect. 5.4.1 ). In simple terms, if in the instance of the present study it is found that discretion is multidimensional, this would constitute a proof-by-counter-example that discretion is not unidimensional in all cases. While this does not prove that unidimensional measures of discretion are flawed in the existing studies and responsible for the discretion puzzle, it would offer evidence that this is a possibility and warrants further investigation.

Among the many empirical studies resorting to proxy measures for gauging managerial discretion, discretion has prevalently been modelled as unidimensional as well. Empirical studies have modelled unidimensional discretion constructs by measuring one or several proxies related to e.g. ratings of managerial power, internal representation on the board of directors, managerial stock ownership, and financial ratios (e.g. Huiyuan Chen 2006 ; Khanchel 2009 ; Yougen Li and Zhao 2004 ; Zhang and Li 2008b ; Zhang et al. 2006a , b ) as well as multiple antecedents mainly drawn from the task environment (e.g. Agarwal et al. 2009 ; Berman et al. 2005 ; Cameron 2000 ; Finkelstein and Boyd 1998 ; Finkelstein and Hambrick 1990 ; He et al. 2009 ; Magnan and St-Onge 1997 ; Rajagopalan and Finkelstein 1992 ; Williamson 1963 ). In addition, industry-level discretion has been frequently proxied in existing studies (e.g. Abrahamson and Hambrick 1997 ; Datta et al. 2003 ; Finkelstein and Hambrick 1990 ; Hambrick and Abrahamson 1995 ; Hambrick et al. 1993 ; Keegan 2006 ; Keegan and Kabanoff 2008 ; Thomas and Peyrefitte 1996 ).

As is explained in Chap. 7 , erroneously treating discretion as unidimensional when it is in fact multidimensional might produce misleading estimates of the impact of discretion on performance that could potentially be a cause of the contradictory empirical evidence that gives rise to the discretion puzzle.

Section  2.3 has derived these influences (i.e. moderators) from the theories’ assumptions, as these determine the theories’ predicted impact of discretion on performance. For example, the principal’s and manager’s psychological characteristics, perceptions of the organisation’s situational characteristics, and expectations are all postulated to influence whether the manager’s natural predisposition to performance maximisation is as assumed in principal-agent theory (i.e. discretion is abused to pursue self-serving interests at the expense of performance) or as assumed in stewardship theory (i.e. discretion is used to diligently improve performance). Empirical studies focusing on managers as units of analysis where the assumptions of stewardship theory apply (i.e. stewards) might then find a positive impact of discretion on performance, whereas studies focusing on agents might find a negative impact, and studies mixing stewards and agents in their samples might find an insignificant (neutral) impact. It follows that taking a more granular approach that differentiates the unit of analysis according to moderators related to the theories’ assumptions (i.e. firm type and firm size in this study) might reveal that certain units of analysis lead to a positive and others to a negative impact of discretion. This greater granularity could then potentially help explain the contradictory evidence of the discretion puzzle.

By testing whether the impact of discretion on performance can differ by these influences (i.e. firm type and firm size), the present study establishes whether managers in different firm types and firm sizes tend to use their discretion in different ways (i.e. more like stewards or more like agents, leading to positive impacts in some situations and negative impacts in others). This therefore tests for whether the influences on managers help explain a positive versus negative impact of discretion on performance and thereby potentially help explain the contradictory empirical results that give rise to the discretion puzzle.

Similarly, with different types of firms attracting different people, the psychological characteristics and expectations that stewardship theorists have argued to influence how managers use discretion might differ between Chinese firms and multinationals (see Sect.  2.3.3.2 ; e.g. Argyris 1973a , b ; Brown 1969 ; Caza 2007 ; Davis et al. 1997b , pp. 38–43; French and Raven 1959 ; Gibson et al. 1991 ; Katz and Kahn 1978 ; Khanchel 2009 , p. 98; Maslow 1970 ; McGregor 1960 ; Mills and Keast 2009 ; Simon 1957a , b ; Turner 1981 ; Van Slyke 2007 ; Vargas Sánchez 2004 , pp. 4–5, 2005 , pp. 24–25). In addition to these influences derived from stewardship theory that can affect the manager’s natural predisposition to performance maximisation, Chinese firms and multinationals might also differ in terms of their compensation control mechanisms, which can moderate the impact of discretion on performance in principal-agent theory (see Sect.  2.3.2 ; e.g. Agrawal and Knoeber 1996 , p. 378; Berger et al. 1997 , p. 1411; Burkart et al. 1997 , p. 705; Chang and Wong 2003 , p. 6; Cheng et al. 2006 ; Eisenhardt 1989 , p. 60; Fama and Jensen 1983a , p. 345; Jensen and Meckling 1976 ; Jensen and Murphy 1990 , p. 226; Levinthal 1988 , p. 153; Spremann 1987 , p. 10; Wang et al. 2008 ; Werner and Tosi 1995 , p. 1673; Zhang and Li 2008b ).

For the unit of analysis of the present study (see Chap. 3 ), this would predict that top management at corporate headquarters in China could, ceteris paribus, better monitor the plant manager in a larger firm with multiple plants and plant managers than in a smaller firm with only a single plant and a single plant manager.

For example, if plant managers in Chinese firms tended to be more performance-maximising than top management but plant managers in multinationals tended to be less performance-maximising than top management, then better monitoring control mechanisms in e.g. larger firms that aligned the plant manager’s actions more closely with those desired by top management would reduce performance in Chinese firms but improve performance in multinationals. Firm type would then influence (i.e. moderate) whether firm size has a positive or negative moderating effect on the impact of discretion on performance. This study’s model allows for such three-way interaction by estimating separate moderating effects of firm size by firm type.

Empirical evidence exists for both approaches. On the one hand, scholars have tested moderators that derive directly from the assumptions of principal-agent theory and stewardship theory, such as managerial incentives (Cheng et al. 2006 ), managerial commitment, the number of similar units, managerial education, and managerial experience (Caza 2007 ; 2011 ), top management pay gap (Zhang and Li 2008b ), and corporate control via performance monitoring, incentive systems, and social integration (Wang et al. 2008 ). On the other hand, scholars have tested moderators that aggregate individual influences to an organisational context, such as ownership concentration (Yougen Li and Zhao 2004 ), export joint venture group composition (López-Navarro and Camisón-Zornoza 2003 ), the organisational type of state-owned enterprises (Xu et al. 2005 ), and market competition (Zhao et al. 2010 ). The organisational context measured by these moderators may tap into individual influences from the theories, e.g. competition might tap into monitoring control mechanisms: ‘The firm is disciplined by competition from other firms, which forces the evolution of devices for efficiently monitoring the performance of the entire team and of its individual members’ (Fama 1980 , p. 289).

As noted in Sect.  2.3.3.2 , even if it were empirically proven that certain psychological characteristics, perceptions, and expectations predicted whether a given manager acted as a steward versus an agent, it would be intricate for a principal in practice to observe these factors and thus evaluate ex ante whether or not the manager would act as a steward or an agent (Davis et al. 1997b , p. 22; Williamson 1985 )—making it difficult to recommend whether to increase or decrease managerial discretion in practice.

In terms of the algebraic notation utilised throughout this chapter, Fig.  2.6 depicts performance as a linear function of discretion (i.e. \( P=d\cdot D+c\cdot C+m\cdot \left( {D\cdot M} \right) \) ), with the impact of discretion on performance (i.e. \( {{{\partial P}} \left/ {{\partial D}} \right.}=d+m\cdot M \) ) represented by the slopes of the lines. When the impact of discretion on performance is positive ( \( {{{\partial P}} \left/ {{\partial D}} \right.}>0 \) ), the line is upwards-sloping and when the impact is negative, it is downwards-sloping.

As discussed in Sects. 1.1 and 2.3 , existing combinations of managerial discretion theory, principal-agent theory, and stewardship theory also do not fully explain the impact of discretion on performance (e.g. Caza 2007 ; 2011 ; Davis et al. 1997b , pp. 27–43; Finkelstein and Peteraf 2007 , pp. 237–243; Lane et al. 1999 , p. 1079; Vargas Sánchez 2001 , 2004 , 2005 ).

As explained in Sect.  2.3.1 , managerial discretion theory does not clearly specify the nature of the impact of discretion on performance and therefore makes no predictions on e.g. positive versus negative impacts (e.g. Adams et al. 2005 ; Crossland and Hambrick 2007 ; Finkelstein and Hambrick 1990 ; Hambrick and Finkelstein 1987 ; Misangyi 2002 ; Quigley and Hambrick 2009 ; Tang 2008 ; Zhao et al. 2010 ). Although principal-agent theory can be consistent with the null hypothesis ( \( H_4^0 \) ) that discretion does not alter performance in exceptional cases—i.e. when control mechanisms are so effective that they unhinge the theory’s assumptions (see Box 2.1 and Box 2.2 in Sect.  2.3.2.2 ; e.g. Agrawal and Knoeber 1996 , p. 377; Chang and Wong 2003 , p. 7)—the main prediction of principal-agent theory is the alternative hypothesis ( \( H_4^1 \) ) that discretion decreases performance (see Sect.  2.3.2 ; e.g. Caza 2007 , p. 10; Caza 2011 ; Chang and Wong 2003 , p. 7; Davis et al. 1997b , p. 38; Hutzschenreuter and Kleindienst 2007 , p. 4; Jensen and Murphy 1990 ; Zhao et al. 2010 ).

In terms of the algebraic notation utilised throughout this chapter, the parameter \( d \) measures the direct effect of managerial discretion ( \( D \) ) on performance ( \( P \) ), which is equal to the total impact of discretion on performance ( \( {{{\partial P}} \left/ {{\partial D}} \right.}=d+m\cdot M \) ) when moderators are zero ( \( M=0 \) ), i.e. when they take their average values (see Sect. 4.3.2 on comparative statics; e.g. Aiken and West 1991 , p. 37; Dowling 2000 , pp. 284–291; Finney et al. 1984 ; Henseler and Fassott 2010 , p. 728; Hirschey 2009 , p. 99).

Universally rejected refers to rejecting the null hypothesis after accounting for the greater granularity, e.g. rejecting the null hypothesis when differentiating discretion’s impact by multiple dimensions of discretion.

If the empirical results are not consistent with any single existing theory for the present study’s particular instance of plant managers in China, this would serve as a proof-by-counter-example for the aforementioned postulate that neither existing theory can fully explain the empirical impact of discretion on performance after applying the greater granularity, since then neither theory could fully explain the impact of discretion on performance at least in the particular instance of the present study and therefore not universally in all studies.

Abrahamson, E., Hambrick, D.C.: Attentional homogeneity in industries: the effect of discretion. J. Organ. Behav. 18 , 513–532 (1997)

Google Scholar  

Acemoglu, D., Aghion, P., Lelarge, C., Van Reenen, J., Zilibotti, F.: Technology, information, and the decentralization of the firm. Q. J. Econ. 122 (4), 1759–1799 (2007)

Adams, R.B., Almeida, H., Ferreira, D.: Powerful CEOs and Their Impact on Corporate Performance. Rev. Financ. Stud. 18 (4), 1403–1432 (2005)

Agarwal, V., Daniel, N.D., Naik, N.Y.: Role of managerial incentives and discretion in hedge fund performance. J. Finance 64 (5), 2221–2256 (2009)

Aghion, P., Tirole, J.: Formal and real authority in organizations. J. Polit. Econ. 105 (1), 1–29 (1997)

Agrawal, A., Knoeber, C.R.: Firm performance and mechanisms to control agency problems between managers and shareholders. J. Financ. Quant. Anal. 31 (3), 377–397 (1996)

Aiken, L.S., West, S.G.: Multiple Regression: Testing and Interpreting Interactions. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA (1991)

Albanese, R., Dacin, M.T., Harris, I.C.: Agents as Stewards. Acad. Manag. Rev. 22 (3), 609–611 (1997)

Aldrich, H.E.: Organizations and Environments. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ (1979)

Aminpour, S., Woetzel, J.R.: Applying lean manufacturing in China. The McKinsey Quarterly, 2006 Special Edition: Serving the New Chinese Consumer, pp. 40–49. (2006)

Aragon-Correa, J.A., Matías-Reche, F., Senise-Barrio, M.E.: Managerial discretion and corporate commitment to the natural environment. J. Bus. Res. 57 (9), 964–975 (2004)

Argyres, N.S., Liebeskind, J.P.: Contractual commitments, bargaining power, and governance inseparability: incorporating history into the transaction cost theory of the firm. Acad. Manag. Rev. 24 (1), 49–63 (1999)

Argyres, N.S., Mayer, K.J.: Contract design as a firm capability: an integration of learning and transaction cost perspectives. Acad. Manag. Rev. 32 (4), 1060–1077 (2007)

Argyris, C.: Integrating the Individual and the Organization. Wiley, New York, NY (1964)

Argyris, C.: Organization man: rational and self-actualizing. Publ. Admin. Rev. 33 , 354–357 (1973a)

Argyris, C.: Some limits of rational man organizational theory. Publ. Admin. Rev. 33 , 253–267 (1973b)

Arnold, H.J.: Moderator variables: a clarification of conceptual, analytic, and psychometric issues. Organ. Behav. Hum. Perform. 29 (2), 143–174 (1982)

Arthurs, J.D., Busenitz, L.W.: The boundaries and limitations of agency theory and stewardship theory in the venture capitalist/entrepreneur relationship. Entrepren. Theor. Pract. 28 (2), 145–162 (2003)

Barnabas, N., Mekoth, N.: Autonomy, market orientation and performance in Indian retail banking. Asia Pac. J. Market. Logist. 22 (3), 330–350 (2010)

Baron, R.M., Kenny, D.A.: The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 51 (6), 1173–1182 (1986)

Baum, J.A.C.: Organizational ecology. In: Clegg, S.R., Hardy, C., Nord, W.R. (eds.) Handbook of Organization Studies, pp. 77–114. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA (1996)

Baum, J.A.C., Amburgey, T.L.: Organizational ecology. In: Baum, J.A.C. (ed.) The Blackwell Companion to Organizations, pp. 304–326. Blackwell, Oxford, UK (2002)

Baysinger, B.D., Butler, H.N.: Corporate governance and the board of directors: performance effects of changes in board composition. J. Law Econ. Organ. 1 (1), 101–124 (1985)

Bentler, P.M., Chou, C.P.: Practical issues in structural modeling. Socio. Meth. Res. 16 (1), 78–117 (1987)

Bentler, P.M., Weeks, D.G.: Linear structural equations with latent variables. Psychometrika 45 (3), 289–308 (1980)

Bercovitz, J., Jap, S.D., Nickerson, J.A.: The antecedents and performance implications of cooperative exchange norms. Organ. Sci. 17 (6), 724–740 (2006)

Berger, P.G., Ofek, E., Yermack, D.L.: Managerial entrenchment and capital structure decisions. J. Finance 52 (4), 1411–1438 (1997)

Berle, A.A., Means, G.C.: The Modern Corporation and Private Property. Macmillan, New York, NY (1932)

Berman, S.L., Phillips, R.A., Wicks, A.C.: Resource dependence, managerial discretion and stakeholder performance. Paper presented at the Academy of Management Annual Meeting Proceedings, Honolulu, HI (2005)

Betzin, J., Henseler, J.: Einführung in die Funktionsweise des PLS-Algorithmus. In: Bliemel, F., Eggert, A., Fassott, G., Henseler, J. (eds.) Handbuch PLS-Pfadmodellierung: Methode, Anwendung, Praxisbeispiele. Schäffer-Poeschel, Stuttgart, Germany (2005)

Bloom, N., Sadun, R., Van Reenen, J.: Measuring and Explaining Decentralization Across Firms and Countries. Centre for Economic Performance (CEP), London School of Economics and Political Science, London, UK (2008)

Bloom, N., Sadun, R., Van Reenen, J.: Do Private Equity Owned Firms Have Better Management Practices? Centre for Economic Performance (CEP), London School of Economics and Political Science, London, UK (2009a)

Bloom, N., Sadun, R., Van Reenen, J.: The Organization of Firms Across Countries. Centre for Economic Performance (CEP), London School of Economics and Political Science, London, UK (2009b)

Bogart, W.T.: Accountability and nonprofit organizations: an economic perspective. Nonprof. Manag. Leader. 6 , 157–169 (1995)

Bollen, K.A.: Structural Equations with Latent Variables. Wiley, New York, NY (1989)

Bowen, R.M., Rajgopal, S., Venkatachalam, M.: Accounting discretion, corporate governance, and firm performance. Contemp. Account. Res. 25 (2), 351–405 (2008)

Brody, E.: Agents without principals: the economic convergence of the nonprofit and for-profit organizational forms. New York Law Sch. Law Rev. 40 (457–536) (1996)

Brown, M.E.: Identification and some conditions of organizational involvement. Adm. Sci. Q. 14 (346–355) (1969)

Brush, T.H., Bromiley, P., Hendrickx, M.: The free cash flow hypothesis for sales growth and firm performance. Strateg. Manag. J. 21 (4), 455–472 (2000)

Burkart, M., Gromb, D., Panunzi, F.: Large shareholders, monitoring, and the value of the firm. Q. J. Econ. 112 (3), 693–728 (1997)

Cameron, L.J.: Limiting buyer discretion: effects on performance and price in long-term contracts. Am. Econ. Rev. 90 (1), 265–281 (2000)

Carpenter, M.A., Golden, B.R.: Perceived managerial discretion: a study of cause and effect. Strateg. Manag. J. 18 (3), 187–206 (1997)

Carpenter, M.A., Geletkanycz, M.A., Sanders, W.G.: Upper echelons research revisited: antecedents, elements and consequences of top management team composition. J. Manag. 30 (6), 749–778 (2004)

Carroll, G.R.: Ecological Models of Organizations. Ballinger, Cambridge, MA (1988)

Carte, T.A., Russell, C.J.: In pursuit of moderation: nine common errors and their solutions. MIS Q. 27 (3), 479–501 (2003)

Caza, A.J.: Three papers on managerial discretion. Business administration and psychology. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI (2007)

Caza, A.J.: Testing alternate predictions for the performance consequences of middle managers’ discretion. Hum. Resour. Manag. 50 (1), 9–28 (2011)

Cennamo, C., Berrone, P., Gomez-Mejia, L.R.: Does stakeholder management have a dark side? J. Bus. Ethics 89 (4), 491–507 (2009)

Chaganti, R.S., Mahajan, V., Sharma, S.: Corporate board size, composition and corporate failures in retailing industry. J. Manag. Stud. 22 (4), 400–417 (1985)

Chandler, A.D.: Strategy and Structure: Chapters in the History of American Industrial Enterprise. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA (1962)

Chang, E.C., Wong, S.M.L.: Managerial discretion and firm performance in China’s listed firms. Working Paper 1036, University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong (2003)

Chang, E.C., Wong, S.M.L.: Political control and performance in China’s listed firms. J. Comp. Econ. 32 (4), 617–636 (2004)

Chen, H.: KulturSchock China: VR China/Taiwan. Reise Know-How Verlag Peter Rump, Bielefeld, Germany (2004)

Chen, H.: Tantao jingli zizhuquan dui shangshi gongsi jixiao de yinxiang [Examining the Influence of Managerial Discretion on the Performance of Listed Companies]. Zhejiang daxue [Zhejiang University], Hangzhou, China (2006)

Cheng, H., Hsiao, C., Nugent, J.B., Qiu, J.: Managerial autonomy, contractual incentives and productivity in a transition economy. Pac. Econ. Rev. 11 (3), 341–361 (2006)

Child, J.: Organizational structure, environment and performance: the role of strategic choice. Sociology 6 , 2–21 (1972)

Child, J.: Strategic choice in the analysis of action, structure, organizations and environment: retrospect and prospect. Organ. Stud. 18 (1), 43 (1997)

Child, J.: Strategic Choice. In: Sorge, A. (ed.) Organisation, pp. 107–126. Thomson Learning, London, UK (2002)

Child, J., Chung, L., Davies, H.: The performance of cross-border units in China: a test of natural selection, strategic choice and contingency theories. J. Int. Bus. Stud. 34 (3), 242–254 (2003)

Childs, P.D., Mauer, D.C.: Managerial discretion, agency costs, and capital structure. http://ssrn.com/abstract=1108218 (2008). Accessed 02 Dec 2008

Chin, W.W., Marcolin, B.L., Newsted, P.R.: A partial least squares latent variable modeling approach for measuring interaction effects: results from a Monte Carlo simulation study and an electronic-mail emotion/adoption study. Inf. Syst. Res. 14 (2), 189–217 (2003)

Chui, W.H.: Quantitative legal research. In: McConville, M., Chui, W.H. (eds.) Research Methods for Law. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh, Scotland (2007)

Coase, R.H.: The nature of the firm. Economica 4 (16), 386–405 (1937)

Coase, R.H.: The problem of social cost. J. Law Econ. 3 , 1–44 (1960)

Cohen, J.: Partialed products are interactions; partialed powers are curve components. Psychol. Bull. 85 (4), 858–866 (1978)

Colombo, M.G., Delmastro, M.: Delegation of authority in business organizations: an empirical test. J. Ind. Econ. 52 (1), 53–80 (2004)

Corbetta, G., Salvato, C.: Self-serving or self-actualizing? Models of man and agency costs in different types of family firms: a commentary on ‘comparing the agency costs of family and non-family firms: conceptual issues and exploratory evidence’. Entrepren. Theor Pract. 28 (4), 355–362 (2004)

Cronbach, L.J.: Statistical tests for moderator variables: Flaws in analyses recently proposed. Psychol. Bull. 102 (3), 414–417 (1987)

Crossland, C.: National Institutions and Managerial Discretion: A Taxonomy of 24 Countries. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the academy of management, Philadelphia, PA (2007)

Crossland, C., Hambrick, D.C.: How national systems differ in their constraints on corporate executives: a study of CEO effects in three countries. Strateg. Manag. J. 28 (8), 767–789 (2007)

Cyert, R.M., March, J.G.: A Behavioral Theory of the Firm. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ (1963)

Daniels, P.: Research and development, human capital and trade performance in technology-intensive manufactures: a cross-country analysis. Res. Pol. 22 (3), 207–241 (1993)

Datta, D.K., Rajagopalan, N., Zhang, Y.: New CEO openness to change and strategic persistence: the moderating role of industry characteristics. Br. J. Manag. 14 (2), 101–114 (2003)

Davis, J.H., Schoorman, F.D., Donaldson, L.: Davis, Schoorman, and Donaldson reply: The distinctiveness of agency theory and stewardship theory. Acad. Manag. Rev. 22 (3), 611–613 (1997a)

Davis, J.H., Schoorman, F.D., Donaldson, L.: Toward a stewardship theory of management. Acad. Manag. Rev. 22 (3), 20–47 (1997b)

Demsetz, H., Lehn, K.: The structure of corporate ownership: causes and consequences. J. Polit. Econ. 93 (6), 1155–1177 (1985)

Denis, D.J., Denis, D.K.: Managerial discretion, organizational structure, and corporate performance. J. Account. Econ. 16 (1–3), 209–236 (1993)

Denis, D.J., Denis, D.K., Sarin, A.: Agency problems, equity ownership, and corporate diversification. J. Finance 52 (1), 135–160 (1997)

Dharwadkar, R., George, G., Brandes, P.: Privatization in emerging economies: an agency theory perspective. Acad. Manag. Rev. 25 , 650–669 (2000)

Dicke, L.A., Ott, J.S.: A test: can stewardship theory serve as a second conceptual foundation for accountability methods in contracted human services? Int. J. Publ. Admin. 25 (4), 463–487 (2002)

Donaldson, L.: The ethereal hand: organizational economics and management theory. Acad. Manag. Rev. 15 (3), 369–381 (1990)

Donaldson, L., Davis, J.H: CEO governance and shareholder returns: agency theory or stewardship theory. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management, Washington, DC (1989)

Donaldson, L., Davis, J.H.: Stewardship theory or agency theory: CEO governance and shareholder returns. Aust. J. Manag. 16 (1), 49–64 (1991)

Donaldson, L., Davis, J.H.: The need for theoretical coherence and intellectual rigour in corporate governance research: reply to critics of Donaldson and Davis. Aust. J. Manag. 18 (2), 213–223 (1993)

Donaldson, L., Davis, J.H.: Boards and company performance—research challenges the conventional wisdom. Corp. Govern. Int. Rev. 2 (3), 151–160 (1994)

Doucouliagos, C.: A note on the evolution of homo economicus. J. Econ. Issues 28 (3), 877–883 (1994)

Dowling, E.T.: Introduction to Mathematical Economics, 3rd edn. McGraw-Hill, Blacklick, OH (2000)

Eddleston, K.A., Kellermanns, F.W.: Destructive and productive family relationships: a stewardship theory perspective. J. Bus. Ventur. 22 (4), 545–565 (2007)

Eisenhardt, K.M.: Agency theory: an assessment and review. Acad. Manag. Rev. 14 (1), 57–74 (1989)

Elbanna, S., Child, J.: The influence of decision, environmental and firm characteristics on the rationality of strategic decision-making. J. Manag. Stud. 44 (4), 561–591 (2007)

Fama, E.F.: Agency problems and the theory of the firm. J. Polit. Econ. 88 (2), 288–307 (1980)

Fama, E.F., Jensen, M.C.: Agency problems and residual claims. J. Law Econ. 26 (2), 327–349 (1983a)

Fama, E.F., Jensen, M.C.: Separation of ownership and control. J. Law Econ. 26 (2), 301–326 (1983b)

Fassott, G.: Die PLS-Pfadmodellierung: Entwicklungsrichtungen, Möglichkeiten, Grenzen. In: Bliemel, F., Eggert, A., Fassott, G., Henseler, J. (eds.) Handbuch PLS-Pfadmodellierung: Methode, Anwendung, Praxisbeispiele. Schäffer-Poeschel, Stuttgart, Germany (2005)

Finkelstein, S., Boyd, B.K.: How much does the CEO matter? The role of managerial discretion in the setting of CEO compensation. Acad. Manage. J. 41 (2), 179–199 (1998)

Finkelstein, S., Hambrick, D.C.: Top-management-team tenure and organizational outcomes: the moderating role of managerial discretion. Adm. Sci. Q. 35 , 484–503 (1990)

Finkelstein, S., Peteraf, M.: Managerial activities: a missing link in managerial discretion theory. Strateg. Organ. 5 (3), 237–248 (2007)

Finney, J.W., Mitchell, R.E., Cronkite, R.C., Moos, R.H.: Methodological issues in estimating main and interactive effects: examples from coping/social support and stress field. J. Heal. Soc. Behav. 25 , 85–98 (1984)

Fleishman, E.A., Harris, E.F.: Patterns of leadership behavior related to employee grievances and turnover. Pers. Psychol. 15 (43–56) (1962)

Fogiel, M.: Statistics. Research & Education Association, Piscataway, NJ (2000)

Fornell, C.: A second generation of multivariate analysis: classification of methods and implications for marketing research. In: Houston, M.J. (ed.) Review of Marketing 1987. American Marketing Association, Chicago, IL (1987)

Fox, M.A., Hamilton, R.T.: Ownership and diversification: agency theory or stewardship theory. J. Manag. Stud. 31 (1), 69–81 (1994)

Frank, R.H.: Microeconomics and Behavior. McGraw-Hill, New York, NY (1994)

Freeman, J., Carroll, G.R., Hannan, M.T.: The liability of newness: age dependence in organizational death rates. Am. Sociol. Rev. 48 (5), 692–710 (1983)

French, J.R.P., Raven, B.: The bases of social power. In: Cartwright, D. (ed.) Studies in Social Power, pp. 150–167. University of Michigan Institute for Social Research, Ann Arbor, MI (1959)

Frey, B.S.: Motivation as a limit to pricing. J. Econ. Psychol. 14 (4), 635–664 (1993)

Galavan, R.: Exploring the belief systems of senior managers: antecedents of managerial discretion. Unpublished Thesis for Doctor of Philosophy, School of Management, Cranfield University, Cranfield, UK (2005)

Galavan, R., Kakabadse, A., Kakabadse, N.: Managerial discretion: exploring the black box of demographic research. Paper presented at the British Academy of Management Conference 2009 (BAM 2009): The End of the Pier? Competing Perspectives on the Challenges Facing Business and Management, Brighton Centre, Brighton, UK, 17 Sept 2009

Galbraith, J.K.: The New Industrial State. Houghton-Mifflin, Cambridge, MA (1967)

Gammelgaard, J., McDonald, F., Stephan, A., Tüselmann, H., Dörrenbächer, C.: Performance Effects of Subsidiary Developments in Collaboration, and Decision Making Power (CIBEM Working Paper). Department of International Economics and Management, Copenhagen Business School, Frederiksberg, Denmark (2010)

Garson, G.: Guide to Writing Empirical Papers, Theses, and Dissertations. Marcel Dekker, New York, NY (2002)

Gentle, J.E.: Matrix Algebra: Theory, Computations, and Applications in Statistics. Springer Science+Business Media, LLC., New York, NY (2007)

Gibbons, R.: Game Theory for Applied Economists. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ (1992)

Gibson, J.L., Ivancevich, J.M., Donnelly, J.H.: Organizations. Irwin, Homewood, IL (1991)

Glaister, K.W., Husan, R., Buckley, P.J.: Decision-making autonomy in UK international equity joint ventures. Br. J. Manag. 14 (4), 305–322 (2003)

Gliner, J.A., Morgan, G.A.: Research Methods in Applied Settings: An Integrated Approach to Design and Analysis. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ (2000)

Graf Lambsdorff, J., Taube, M., Schramm, M.: Corrupt contracting: exploring the analytical capacity of new institutional economics and new economic sociology. In: Graf Lambsdorff, J., Taube, M., Schramm, M. (eds.) The New Institutional Economics of Corruption, pp. 1–15. Routledge, Abingdon, UK (2006)

Granger, C.W.J.: Investigating causal relations by econometric models and cross-spectral methods. Econometrica 37 (3), 424–438 (1969)

Grant, A: What executives are asking about China: from entry to execution. The McKinsey Quarterly, 2006 Special Edition: Serving the New Chinese Consumer (2006)

Greene, W.H.: Econometric Analysis, 5th edn. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ (2003)

Groves, T., Hong, Y., McMillan, J., Naughton, B.: Autonomy and incentives in Chinese state enterprises. Q. J. Econ. 109 (1), 183–209 (1994)

Gujarati, D.N.: Basic Econometrics, 4th edn. McGraw-Hill, New York, NY (2004)

Guojia tongji ju [National Bureau of Statistics]: 2007 nian guomin jingji pingwen kuaisu fazhan [Smooth and Rapid Development of the National Economy in 2007]. http://www.stats.gov.cn/tjfx/jdfx/t20080124_402460060.htm (2008). Accessed 08 March 2009

Hackman, R.J., Oldham, G., Janson, R., Purdy, K.: A new strategy for job enrichment. Calif. Manag. Rev. 17 (4) (1975)

Haleblian, J., Finkelstein, S.: Top management team size, CEO dominance, and firm performance: the moderating roles of environmental turbulence and discretion. Acad. Manag. J. 36 (4), 844–863 (1993)

Hambrick, D.C.: Upper echelons theory: an update. Acad. Manag. Rev. 32 (2), 334–343 (2007)

Hambrick, D.C., Abrahamson, E.: Assessing managerial discretion across industries: a multimethod approach. Acad. Manag. J. 38 (5), 1427–1441 (1995)

Hambrick, D.C., Finkelstein, S.: Managerial discretion: a bridge between polar views of organizational outcomes. In: Straw, B.M., Cummings, L.L. (eds.) Research in Organizational Behavior, vol. 9, pp. 369–406. JAI Press, Greenwich, CT (1987)

Hambrick, D.C., Mason, P.A.: Upper echelons: the organization as a reflection of its top managers. Acad. Manag. Rev. 9 (2), 193–206 (1984)

Hambrick, D.C., Geletkanycz, M.A., Fredrickson, J.W.: Top executive commitment to the status quo: some tests of its determinants. Strateg. Manag. J. 14 (6), 401–418 (1993)

Hannan, M.T., Freeman, J.: The population ecology of organizations. Am. J. Sociol. 82 , 929–964 (1977)

Hannan, M.T., Freeman, J.: Structural inertia and organizational change. Am. Sociol. Rev. 49 (2), 149–164 (1984)

Harville, D.A.: Matrix Algebra from a Statistician’s Perspective. Springer Science+Business Media, LLC., New York, NY (2008)

Hatzichronoglou, T.: Revision of the high-technology sector and product classification. OECD Science, Technology and Industry Working Papers, 1997/2, OECD Publishing (1997)

Hayashi, F.: Econometrics. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ (2000)

Hayek, F.A.: The use of knowledge in society. Am. Econ. Rev. 35 (4), 519–530 (1945)

He, W., Mukherjee, T.K., Wei, P.: Agency problems in tracking stock and minority carve-out decisions: explaining the discrepancy in short- and long-term performances. J. Econ. Finance 33 (1), 27–42 (2009)

Heinecke, P.: Success Factors of Regional Strategies for Multinational Corporations: Appropriate Degrees of Management Autonomy. Springer, Berlin, Germany (2011)

Henseler, J., Fassott, G.: Testing moderating effects in PLS path models: an illustration of available procedures. In: Esposito Vinzi, V., Chin, W.W., Henseler, J., Wang, H. (eds.) Handbook of Partial Least Squares: Concepts, Methods and Applications in Marketing and Related Fields, pp. 713–736. Springer, Berlin, Germany (2010)

Herzberg, F., Mausner, B., Snyderman, B.B.: The Motivation to Work. Wiley, New York, NY (1959)

Hexter, J. Better manufacturing in China: an interview with two of PLP’s top executives. The McKinsey Quarterly , 1–6 Oct 2006

Hexter, J., Woetzel, J.: Bringing best practice to China. McKinsey Quarterly 4 , 1–7 (2007a)

Hirsch, P., Michaels, S., Friedman, R.: Dirty hands ‘versus’ clean models. Theor. Soc. 16 (3), 317–336 (1987)

Hirschey, M.: Managerial Economics, 12th edn. South-Western Cengage Learning, Mason, OH (2009)

Hitt, M.A., Tyler, B.B.: Strategic decision models: integrating different perspectives. Strateg. Manag. J. 12 (5), 327–351 (1991)

Hofstede, G.: Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values. Sage, Beverly Hills, CA (1980)

Hofstede, G.: Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind. McGraw-Hill, London, UK (1991)

Holmstrom, B.: Moral hazard and observability. Bell J. Econ. 10 (1), 74–91 (1979)

Hoover, W.E.: Making China your second home market: an interview with the CEO of Danfoss. McKinsey Quarterly 1 , 85–93 (2006)

Hrebiniak, L.G., Joyce, W.F.: Organizational adaptation: strategic choice and environmental determinism. Adm. Sci. Q. 30 (3), 336–349 (1985)

Hutzschenreuter, T., Kleindienst, I: A dynamic perspective on managerial discretion: the role of top management team characteristics and strategic agenda. Paper presented at the Annual Conference on Corporate Strategy, Vallendar, Germany, 11 May 2007

Irwin, J.R., McClelland, G.H.: Misleading heuristics and moderated multiple regression models. J. Mark. Res. 38 (1), 100–109 (2001)

Jaccard, J., Turrisi, R.: Interaction Effects in Multiple Regression, 2nd edn. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA (2003)

Jensen, M.C.: Agency costs of free cash flow, corporate finance, and takeovers. Am. Econ. Rev. 76 (2), 323–329 (1986)

Jensen, M.C.: Foundations of Organizational Strategy: Preface and Introduction. Harvard University Press, Boston, MA (1998)

Jensen, M.C., Meckling, W.H.: Theory of the firm: managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure. J. Financ. Econ. 3 (4), 305–360 (1976)

Jensen, M.C., Meckling, W.H.: The nature of man. J. Appl. Corp. Finance 7 (2), 4–19 (1994)

Jensen, M.C., Murphy, K.J.: Performance pay and top-management incentives. J. Polit. Econ. 98 (2), 225–264 (1990)

Jensen, M.C., Ruback, R.S.: The market for corporate control: the scientific evidence. J. Financ. Econ. 11 , 5–50 (1983)

Johnson, G., Langley, A., Melin, L., Whittington, R.: Strategy as Practice: Research Directions and Resources. Cambridge University Press, New York, NY (2007)

Jöreskog, K.G.: A general method for analysis of covariance structures. Biometrika 57 (2), 239–251 (1970)

Jöreskog, K.G.: Analysis of covariance structures. Scand. J. Stat. 8 , 65–92 (1981)

Jöreskog, K.G., Sörbom, D.: Recent developments in structural equation modeling. J. Mark. Res. 19 (4), 404–416 (1982)

Jöreskog, K.G., Sörbom, D.: LISREL 7: A guide to the Program and Applications. SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL (1988)

Judge, W.Q., Zeithaml, C.P.: Institutional and strategic choice perspectives on board involvement in the strategic decision process. Acad. Manag. J. 35 (4), 766–794 (1992)

Katz, D., Kahn, R.L.: The Social Psychology of Organizations. Wiley, New York, NY (1978)

Kaufmann, L., Panhans, D., Poovan, B., Sobotka, B.: China Champions: How German Companies Can Successfully Integrate China Into Their Global Strategies. European Management Publications, Frankfurt a.M., Germany (2005)

Kayhan, A.: Managerial Discretion and the Capital Structure Dynamics, Working Paper. Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA (2008)

Keegan, J.: The association between industry-level discretion and strategic variety: long-term strategic positions and current behaviours. Unpublished Thesis for Doctor of Philosophy, School of Management, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia (2006)

Keegan, J., Kabanoff, B.: Indirect industry- and subindustry-level managerial discretion measurement. Organ. Res. Methods 11 (4), 682–694 (2008)

Kesner, I.F.: Directors’ stock ownership and organizational performance: an investigation of fortune 500 companies. J. Manag. 13 (3), 499–508 (1987)

Key, S.: Perceived managerial discretion: an analysis of individual ethical intentions. J. Manag. Issues 14 (2), 218–235 (2002)

Khanchel, I.: Le Rôle du Pouvoir Discrétionnaire du Dirigeant dans l’Amélioration de la Performance: Cas des Entreprises Tunisiennes. Revue des Sciences de Gestion 237 (238), 95–103 (2009)

Knapp, A.W.: Advanced Algebra. Springer Science+Business Media LLC., New York, NY (2007)

Kydland, F.E., Prescott, E.C.: Rules rather than discretion: the inconsistency of optimal plans. J. Polit. Econ. 85 (3), 473–490 (1977)

Laffont, J.-J., Martimort, D.: The Theory of Incentives: The Principal-Agent Model. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ (2002)

Lane, P.J., Cannella, A.A., Lubatkin, M.H.: Ownership structure and corporate strategy: one question viewed from two different worlds. Strateg. Manag. J. 20 (11), 1077–1086 (1999)

Lang, L., Poulsen, A., Stulz, R.: Asset sales, firm performance, and the agency costs of managerial discretion. J. Financ. Econ. 37 (1), 3–37 (1995)

Lawler, E.E.: High Involvement Management. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA (1986)

Lawler, E.E.: The Ultimate Advantage. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA (1992)

Lee, P.M., O’Neill, H.M.: Ownership structures and R&D investments of US and Japanese firms: agency and stewardship perspectives. Acad. Manag. J. 46 , 212–225 (2003)

Levinthal, D.: A survey of agency models of organizations. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 9 (2), 153–185 (1988)

Li, X.: Managerial autonomy, incentives and firm performance: evidence from investment climate survey in China. Paper presented at the Third Annual IB-BE Doctoral Research Workshop, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, 02 Nov 2007

Li, Y., Zhao, X.: Guowai jingli zizhuquan yanjiu ji celiang [Research and measurement of managerial discretion abroad]. Waiguo jingji yu guanli [Foreign Economics & Management] 25 (12) (2003)

Li, Y., Zhao, X.: Da gudong guquan, jingli zizhuquan yu gongsi jixiao [Ownership concentration, managerial discretion and company performance]. Zhongguo ruankexue [China Soft Science] 4 , 86–92 (2004)

Lieberson, S., O’Connor, J.F.: Leadership and organizational performance: a study of large corporations. Am. Sociol. Rev. 37 (2), 117–130 (1972)

Liu, K., Cai, S.: Gongsi zhili [Corporate Governance]. http://www.ntpu.edu.tw/pa/news/93news/attachment/931105-5.pdf (2004). Accessed 01 May 2010

Lodahl, T.M., Mitchell, S.M.: Drift in the development of innovative organizations. In: Kimberly, J.R., Miles, R.H. (eds.) The Organizational Life Cycle: Issues in the Creation, Transformation, and Decline of Organizations, pp. 184–207. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA (1980)

Lohmöller, J.-B.: PLS-PC: Latent variables path analysis with partial least squares—Version 1.8 for PCs under MS-DOS (1987)

Lohmöller, J.-B.: Latent Variable Path Modeling with Partial Least Squares. Physica-Verlag, Heidelberg, Germany (1989)

López-Navarro, M.Á., Camisón-Zornoza, C.: The effect of group composition and autonomy on the performance of joint ventures (JVs): an analysis based on Spanish export JVs. Int. Bus. Rev. 12 (1), 17–39 (2003)

Loschky, A.: Reviewing the nomenclature for high-technology trade—the sectoral approach. Paper presented at the 1st Meeting of the Working Party on International Trade in Goods and Trade in Services Statistics (WPTGS), OECD Headquarters, Paris, France, 22–24 Sept 2008

Luce, R.D., Raiffa, H.: Games and Decisions. Wiley, New York, NY (1957)

Mackey, A.: The effect of CEOs on firm performance. Strateg. Manag. J. 29 (12), 1357–1367 (2008)

Magnan, M.L., St-Onge, S.: Bank performance and executive compensation: a managerial discretion perspective. Strateg. Manag. J. 18 (7), 573–581 (1997)

Manner, M.H.: The impact of CEO characteristics on corporate social performance. J. Bus. Ethics 93 , 53–72 (2010)

March, J.G., Shapira, Z.: Managerial perspectives on risk and risk taking. Manag. Sci. 33 (11), 1404–1418 (1987)

March, J.G., Simon, H.A.: Organizations. Wiley, New York, NY (1958)

Marin, D., Verdier, T.: Corporate Hierarchies and the Size of Nations: Theory and Evidence. Paris School of Economics Mimeo, Paris, France (2006)

Marlin, D., Lamont, B.T., Hoffman, J.J.: Choice situation, strategy, and performance: a reexamination. Strateg. Manag. J. 15 (3), 229–239 (1994)

Maslow, A.H.: Motivation and Personality. Harper & Row, New York, NY (1970)

McGregor, D.: The Human Side of the Enterprise. McGraw-Hill, New York, NY (1960)

McGregor, J.: One Billion Customers: Lessons from the Front Lines of Doing Business in China. Nicholas Brealey Publishing, London, UK (2005)

McGubbins, M.D., Noll, R.G., Weingast, B.R.: Administrative procedures as instruments of political control. J. Law Econ. Organ. 3 , 243–286 (1987)

Miles, R.E., Snow, C.C.: Organizational Strategy, Structure and Process. McGraw-Hill, New York, NY (1978)

Miller, D., Le Breton-Miller, I.: The best of both worlds: exploitation and exploration in successful family businesses. In: Baum J.A.C., Dobrev S.D., Van Witteloostuijn A. (eds.) Ecology and strategy (Advances in Strategic Management), vol. 23, pp. 215–240. Emerald Group Publishing Limited (2006)

Miller, D., Kets de Vries, M.F.R., Toulouse, J.-M.: Top executive locus of control and its relationship to strategy-making, structure and environments. Acad. Manag. J. 25 , 237–253 (1982)

Mills, D.E., Keast, R.L.: Achieving better stewardship of major infrastructure assets through configuration of governance arrangements utilising stewardship theory. Paper presented at the 13th International Research Society for Public Management Conference (IRSPM XIII), Fredericksberg, Denmark, 06–08 April 2009

Mintzberg, H.: Patterns in strategy formulation. Manag. Sci. 24 , 934–948 (1978)

Misangyi, V.F.: A test of alternative theories of managerial discretion. Unpublished Thesis for Doctor of Philosophy, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL (2002)

Montanari, J.R.: Managerial discretion: an expanded model of organization choice. Acad. Manag. Rev. 3 , 231–241 (1978)

Muth, M., Donaldson, L.: Stewardship theory and board structure: a contingency approach. Corp. Govern. Int. Rev. 6 (1), 5–28 (1998)

Northrop, A., Arsenault, S.: Sampling and data collection. In: Miller, G.J., Yang, K. (eds.) Handbook of Research Methods in Public Administration, 2nd edn, pp. 213–240. CRC, Boca Raton, FL (2007)

OECD: Measuring globalisation: OECD handbook on economic globalisation indicators. OECD Publishing (2005)

Oh, H.: The relationship between Work environment factors and organizational knowledge creation Process. Unpublished Thesis for Doctor of Philosophy, The Faculty of the Graduate School of the University of Minnesota, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN (2002)

Ongore, V.: Ownership Structure, Board, and Manager Discretion on Performance: The Effects of Ownership Structure, Board Effectiveness and Managerial Discretion on Firm Performance. LAP Lambert Academic Publishing, Saarbrücken, Germany (2011)

Onkelinx, J., Sleuwaegen, L.E.: Internationalization strategy and performance of small and medium sized enterprises. National Bank of Belgium Working Paper No. 197 (2010)

Palmer, J.: The profit-performance effects of the separation of ownership from control in large U.S. industrial corporations. Bell J. Econ. Manag. Sci. 4 (1), 293–303 (1973)

Pascha, W.: Japans Stellung in Ost- und Südostasien: Ist Japan für Deutschland noch ein attraktiver Markt und Wirtschaftspartner in der Region? In: Riesenhuber, H., Kreiner, J. (eds.) Japan ist offen: Chancen für deutsche Unternehmen, pp. 57–70. Springer, Berlin, Germany (1998)

Pascha, W., Storz, C.: Einführung. In: Pascha, W., Storz, C. (eds.) Wirkung und Wandel von Institutionen: das Beispiel Ostasien, pp. 3–28. Lucius, Stuttgart, Germany (2005)

Pegels, C.C., Song, Y.I., Yang, B.: Management heterogeneity, competitive interaction groups, and firm performance. Strateg. Manag. J. 21 (9), 911–923 (2000)

Perrone, V., Zaheer, A., McEvily, B.: Free to be Trusted? Organizational constraints on trust in boundary spanners. Organ. Sci. 14 (4), 422–439 (2003)

Perrow, C.: Complex Organizations: A Critical Essay. McGraw-Hill, New York, NY (1986)

Peters, T.J., Waterman, R.H.: In Search of Excellence: Lessons from America’s Best-run Companies, 1st edn. Harper & Row, New York, NY (1982)

Porter, M.E.: Competitive Strategy. Free Press, New York, NY (1980)

Pratt, A., Sossin, L.: A brief introduction of the puzzle of discretion. Can. J. Law Soc. 24 (3), 301–312 (2009)

Punch, K.F.: Introduction to Social Research: Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA (2005)

Quigley, T.J., Hambrick, D.C. When the former CEO remains board chair: effects on discretion, organizational change, and performance. Paper presented at the Academy of Management Annual Meeting, Chicago, IL, 2009

Qureshi, I., Compeau, D.: Assessing between-group differences in information systems research: a comparison of covariance- and component-based SEM. MIS Q. 33 (1), 197–214 (2009)

Rajagopalan, N., Finkelstein, S.: Effects of strategic orientation and environmental change on senior management reward systems. Strateg. Manag. J. 13 , 127–141 (1992)

Reid, S.R.: Mergers, Managers, and the Economy. McGraw-Hill, New York, NY (1968)

Rigdon, E.E., Schumacker, R.E., Wothke, W.: A comparative review of interaction and nonlinear modeling. In: Schumacker, R.E., Marcoulides, G.A. (eds.) Interaction and Nonlinear Effects in Structural Equation Modeling, pp. 1–16. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ (1998)

Rotter, J.B.: Generalized expectations for internal versus external control of reinforcement. Psychol. Monogr General Applied 80 (609) (1966)

Rumelt, R.: Towards a strategic theory of the firm. In: Lamb, R. (ed.) Competitive Strategic Management, pp. 556–570. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ (1984)

Salvato, C.: Towards a stewardship theory of the family firm. Paper presented at the XIth Family Business Network Conference, Helsinki, Finland, 2002

Salvatore, D., Reagle, D.: Statistics and Econometrics, 2nd edn. McGraw-Hill, New York, NY (2002)

Sánchez, G.: PLS Historical Review. Department of Statistics and Operations Research. Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya, Barcelona, Spain (2008)

Shleifer, A., Vishny, R.W.: A survey of corporate governance. J. Finance 52 (2), 737–783 (1997)

Simon, H.A.: Spurious correlation: a causal interpretation. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 49 , 467–479 (1954)

Simon, H.A.: Administrative Behavior, 2nd edn. Macmillan, New York, NY (1957a)

Simon, H.A.: Models of Man: Social and Rational. Wiley, New York, NY (1957b)

Singh, J.V., Lumsden, C.J.: Theory and research in organizational ecology. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 16 , 161–195 (1990)

Spanos, A.: Statistical Foundations of Econometric Modelling. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK (1986)

Spremann, K.: Agent and principal. In: Bamberg, G., Spremann, K. (eds.) Agency Theory, Information, and Incentives, pp. 3–42. Springer, Berlin, Germany (1987)

Stano, M.: Monopoly power, ownership control, and corporate performance. Bell J. Econ. 7 (2), 672–679 (1976)

Staw, B.M.: The escalation of commitment to a course of action. Acad. Manag. Rev. 6 (577–588) (1981)

Stienstra, M., Baaij, M., Van den Bosch, F., Volberda, H.: Strategic renewal of Europe’s largest telecom operators (1992–2001): from herd behaviour towards strategic choice? Eur. Manag. J. 22 (3), 273–280 (2004)

Stinchcombe, A.L.: Social structure and organizations. In: March, J.G. (ed.) Handbook of Organizations, pp. 142–193. Rand McNally, Chicago, IL (1965)

Tang, J.: Dominant CEO, deviant strategy, and extreme performance. Unpublished Thesis for Doctor of Philosophy, The University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada (2008)

Taube, M.: Chinas rasante ökonomische Entwicklung: Grundlagen, Triebkräfte und Perspektiven des wirtschaftlichen Aufstiegs. Der Bürger im Staat 3 (4), 186–194 (2008)

Thépot, J.: Jensen et Meckling Trente Ans Après. Rev. Fr. Gest. 175 , 15–22 (2007)

Thomas, A.S., Peyrefitte, J.: The impact of managerial discretion on firm performance. J. Bus. Strateg. 13 (1), 21–41 (1996)

Thomsen, S., Pedersen, T.: Ownership structure and economic performance in the largest European companies. Strateg. Manag. J. 21 (6), 689–705 (2000)

Tian, X.: Managing International Business in China. Cambridge University Press, New York, NY (2007)

Tian, J.J., Lau, C.-M.: Board composition, leadership structure and performance in Chinese shareholding companies. Asia Pac. J. Manag. 18 (2), 245–263 (2001)

Tirole, J.: The Theory of Industrial Organization. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA (1988)

Tosi, H.L., Brownlee, A.L., Silva, P., Katz, J.P.: An empirical exploration of decision-making under agency controls and stewardship structure. J. Manag. Stud. 40 (8), 2053–2071 (2003)

Triandis, H.C.: Cross-cultural studies of individualism and collectivism. In: Berman, J.J. (ed.) Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, vol. 37, pp. 41–134. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, NE (1990)

Triandis, H.C.: Individualism and Collectivism. Westview, Boulder, CO (1995)

Triandis, H.C., Dunnette, M., Hough, I.M. (eds.): Cross-Cultural Studies. Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology (Vol. 4). Consulting Psychologists, Palo Alto, CA (1993)

Turner, J.C.: The experimental social psychology of intergroup behavior. In: Turner, J.C., Giles, H. (eds.) Intergroup Behavior, pp. 66–101. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL (1981)

Tushman, M.L., Romanelli, E.: Organizational evolution: a metamorphosis model of convergence and reorientation. In: Staw, B.M., Cummings, L.L. (eds.) Research in Organizational Behaviour, vol. 7, pp. 171–222. JAI Press, Greenwich, CT (1985)

Van Slyke, D.M.: Agents or stewards: using theory to understand the government-nonprofit social service contracting relationship. J. Publ. Admin. Res. Theor. 17 (2), 157–187 (2007)

Vargas Sánchez, A.: La Teoría de la Agencia versus la Teoría del Servidor: una Aplicación a las Sociedades Cooperativas Agrarias de la Provincia de Huelva. Paper presented at the Best Papers Proceedings. X International Conference of AEDEM, Reggio Calabria, Italy, 04–06 Sept 2001

Vargas Sánchez, A.: Development of corporate governance systems: agency theory versus stewardship theory in Welsh agrarian cooperative societies. Paper presented at the 4th Annual Conference of EURAM (European Academy of Management), St. Andrews, Scotland, 05–09 May 2004

Vargas Sánchez, A.: Agency theory versus stewardship theory. http://www.slideworld.com/slideshows.aspx/AGENCY-THEORY-VERSUS-STEWARDSHIP-THEORY-ppt-914587 (2005). Acessed 01 May 2010

Venaik, S.: A model of global marketing in multinational firms: an empirical investigation. Unpublished Thesis for Doctor of Philosophy, Australian Graduate School of Management, University of Sydney and University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia (1999)

Venkatraman, N.: The concept of fit in strategy research: toward verbal and statistical correspondence. Acad. Manag. Rev. 14 (3), 423–444 (1989)

Verhoest, K.: Autonomy, contracting and competition: what is their effect on the performance of executive public organisations. Paper presented at the European Group on Public Administration (EGPA) 2003 Workshop ‘Governance: What do we Know?’, Lisbon, Portugal, 03–06 Sept. 2003

von Neumann, J., Morgenstern, O.: Theory of Games and Economic Behavior. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ (1944)

Wagner, J.: The causal effects of exports on firm size and labor productivity: first evidence from a matching approach. Econ. Lett. 77 (2), 287–292 (2002)

Walsh, J.P., Seward, J.K.: On the efficiency of internal and external corporate control mechanisms. Acad. Manag. Rev. 15 (3), 421–458 (1990)

Walters, J.H.: Managerial Discretion, Top Managers' Perceptions, and Firm Performance: An Empirical Examination. Unpublished Thesis for Doctor of Philosophy, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX (1995)

Walton, R.E.: Establishing and maintaining high-commitment work systems. In: Kimberly, J.R., Miles, R.H. (eds.) The Organizational Life Cycle: Issues in the Creating, Transformation, and Decline of Organizations. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA (1980)

Walton, R.E.: From control to commitment in the workplace. Harv. Bus. Rev. 63 (2), 76–84 (1985)

Wang, H.: Essays on CEO turnover, succession, and compensation. Unpublished Thesis for Doctor of Philosophy, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, IL (2009)

Wang, T., Birkinshaw, J., Toulan, O.: Delegation and control mechanisms of multinational corporations in managing global customers. Paper presented at the Strategic Management Department Seminar Series, Department of Strategic Management at the Guanghua School of Management, Peking University, Beijing, China, 12 Nov 2008

Weidenbaum, M., Jensen, M.: Modern corporations and private property. Society 30 (1), 101–106 (1993)

Werner, S., Tosi, H.L.: Other people’s money: the effects of ownership on compensation strategy and managerial pay. Acad. Manag. J. 38 (6), 1672–1691 (1995)

Williamson, O.E.: Managerial discretion and business behavior. Am. Econ. Rev. 53 , 1032–1057 (1963)

Williamson, O.E.: Markets and Hierarchies: Analysis and Antitrust Implications. Free Press, New York, NY (1975)

Williamson, O.E.: The Economic Institutions of Capitalism: Firms, Markets, Relational Contracting. Free Press, New York, NY (1985)

Williamson, O.E.: Comparative economic organization: the analysis of discrete structural alternatives. Adm. Sci. Q. 36 , 269–296 (1991)

Williamson, O.E.: The Mechanisms of Governance. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK (1996)

Wold, H.: Nonlinear estimation by partial least squares procedures. In: David, F.N. (ed.) Research Papers in Statistics: Festschrift for J. Neyman, pp. 411–444. Wiley, New York, NY (1966)

Wold, H.: Nonlinear iterative partial least squares (NIPALS) modeling: some current developments. In: Krishnaiah, P.R. (ed.) Multivariate Analysis III, pp. 383–407. Academic, New York, NY (1973)

Wold, H.: Path models with latent variables: The NIPALS approach. In: Blalock, H.M. (ed.) Quantitative Sociology: International Perspectives on Mathematical and Statistical Modeling, pp. 307–357. Academic, New York, NY (1975)

Wold, H.: Soft modeling: the basic design and some extensions. In: Jöreskog, K.G., Wold, H. (eds.) Systems Under Indirect Observation: Causality, Structure, Prediction, Vol Part II, pp. 1–54. North Holland, Amsterdam, Netherlands (1982)

Wold, H.: Partial least squares. In: Kotz, S., Johnson, N.L. (eds.) Encyclopedia of Statistical Sciences, vol. 6, pp. 581–591. Wiley, New York, NY (1985)

Wold, H.: Introduction to the second generation of multivariate analysis. In: Wold, H. (ed.) Theoretical Empiricism: A General Rationale for Scientific Model-building, pp. 9–11. Paragon House, New York, NY (1989)

Wood, B.D., Waterman, R.W.: The dynamics of political control of the bureaucracy. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 85 , 801–828 (1991)

Wooldridge, J.M.: Introductory Econometrics: A Modern Approach, 2nd edn. South-Western College Publishing, Mason, OH (2002)

Wright, P., Kroll, M.: Executive discretion and corporate performance as determinants of CEO compensation, contingent on external monitoring activities. J.Manage. Govern. 6 (3), 189–214 (2002)

Xu, L.C., Zhu, T., Lin, Y.: Politician control, agency problems and ownership reform: evidence from China. Econ. Transit. 13 (1), 1–24 (2005)

Yan, Y., Chong, C.Y., Mak, S.: An exploration of managerial discretion and its impact on firm performance: task autonomy, contractual control, and compensation. Int. Bus. Rev. 19 (6), 521–530 (2010)

Zahra, S.A.: Ownership Involvement and international expansion: an empirical test of the stewardship theory among family firms. J. Bus. Ventur. 18 (4), 495–512 (2003)

Zahra, S.A., Stanton, W.W.: The implications of board of directors composition for corporate strategy and performance. Int. J. Manag. 5 , 229–236 (1988)

Zhang, W.: Decision rights, residual claim and performance: a theory of how the Chinese state enterprise reform works. China Econ. Rev. 8 (1), 67–82 (1997)

Zhang, C., Li, H.: Gongsi zhili zhong de jingli zizhuquan yanjiu zongshu [The Review of Managerial Discretion in Corporate Governance]. Zhongguo ruankexue [China Soft Science], 22(5), 33–38 (2008a)

Zhang, C., Li, H.: Jingli zizhuquan, gaoguan baochou chaju yu gongsi yeji [Managerial Discretion, Top Management Pay Gap and Company Performance]. Zhongguo ruankexue [China Soft Science](4), 117–126 (2008b)

Zhang, C., Xie, J.: Empirical study on effect of managerial discretion on ceo pay-performance sensitivity. Paper presented at the 2008 International Conference on Risk Management and Engineering Management, Beijing, China, 04–06 Nov 2008

Zhang, C., Li, H., Zhao, X.: Qiye guimo, jingli zizhuquan yu R&D touru guanxi yanjiu: laizi Zhongguo shangshi gongsi de jingyan zhengju [Research on the relationship between firm scale, managerial discretion and R&D expenditure: empirical EVIDENCE from China’s listed companies]. Kexue xue yanjiu [Studies in Science of Science] 24 (3), 432–438 (2006a)

Zhang, C., Zhao, X., Li, H.: Jiyu jingli zizhuquan de qiye R&D touru juece moxing ji shizheng yanjiu [Theoretical and empirical research on a decision model of enterprise R&D expenditure based on managerial discretion]. Guanli kexue [Management Sciences in China] 19 (3), 8–13 (2006b)

Zhao, X., Chu, P., Chen, C.: Perceived managerial discretion and firm performance: the moderating role of market competition. Soc. Behav. Pers. Int. J. 38 (2), 145–157 (2010)

Zheng, Y.: Corporate governance and firm performance. Unpublished Thesis for Doctor of Philosophy, Rutgers the State University of New Jersey, Newark, NJ (2007)

Zohar, D., Luria, G.: A multilevel model of safety climate: cross-level relationships between organization and group-level climates. J. Appl. Psychol. 90 (4), 616–628 (2005)

Zou, L.: Essays in Principal-Agent Theory. CIACO, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium (1989)

Betton, S.A.: Competition and corporate tender offer contests. Unpublished Thesis for Doctor of Philosophy, Faculty of Commerce and Business Administration, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada (1985)

Doehring, D.G.: Research Strategies in Human Communication Disorders. Little Brown, Boston, MA (1988)

Zhuravskaya, E.: Market-hampering federalism: local incentives for reform in Russia. In: Dethier, J.-J. (ed.) Governance, Decentralization, and Reform in China, India, and Russia. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, Netherlands (2000)

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

McKinsey & Company, Inc., Beijing, China, People’s Republic

Dr. Hagen Wülferth

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hagen Wülferth .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Wülferth, H. (2013). Literature Review and Hypotheses. In: Managerial Discretion and Performance in China. Contributions to Management Science. Physica, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-35837-1_2

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-35837-1_2

Published : 09 February 2013

Publisher Name : Physica, Berlin, Heidelberg

Print ISBN : 978-3-642-35836-4

Online ISBN : 978-3-642-35837-1

eBook Packages : Business and Economics Business and Management (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

• Privacy Policy

Buy Me a Coffee

Home » What is a Hypothesis – Types, Examples and Writing Guide

What is a Hypothesis – Types, Examples and Writing Guide

Table of Contents

Definition:

Hypothesis is an educated guess or proposed explanation for a phenomenon, based on some initial observations or data. It is a tentative statement that can be tested and potentially proven or disproven through further investigation and experimentation.

Hypothesis is often used in scientific research to guide the design of experiments and the collection and analysis of data. It is an essential element of the scientific method, as it allows researchers to make predictions about the outcome of their experiments and to test those predictions to determine their accuracy.

Types of Hypothesis

Types of Hypothesis are as follows:

Research Hypothesis

A research hypothesis is a statement that predicts a relationship between variables. It is usually formulated as a specific statement that can be tested through research, and it is often used in scientific research to guide the design of experiments.

Null Hypothesis

The null hypothesis is a statement that assumes there is no significant difference or relationship between variables. It is often used as a starting point for testing the research hypothesis, and if the results of the study reject the null hypothesis, it suggests that there is a significant difference or relationship between variables.

Alternative Hypothesis

An alternative hypothesis is a statement that assumes there is a significant difference or relationship between variables. It is often used as an alternative to the null hypothesis and is tested against the null hypothesis to determine which statement is more accurate.

Directional Hypothesis

A directional hypothesis is a statement that predicts the direction of the relationship between variables. For example, a researcher might predict that increasing the amount of exercise will result in a decrease in body weight.

Non-directional Hypothesis

A non-directional hypothesis is a statement that predicts the relationship between variables but does not specify the direction. For example, a researcher might predict that there is a relationship between the amount of exercise and body weight, but they do not specify whether increasing or decreasing exercise will affect body weight.

Statistical Hypothesis

A statistical hypothesis is a statement that assumes a particular statistical model or distribution for the data. It is often used in statistical analysis to test the significance of a particular result.

Composite Hypothesis

A composite hypothesis is a statement that assumes more than one condition or outcome. It can be divided into several sub-hypotheses, each of which represents a different possible outcome.

Empirical Hypothesis

An empirical hypothesis is a statement that is based on observed phenomena or data. It is often used in scientific research to develop theories or models that explain the observed phenomena.

Simple Hypothesis

A simple hypothesis is a statement that assumes only one outcome or condition. It is often used in scientific research to test a single variable or factor.

Complex Hypothesis

A complex hypothesis is a statement that assumes multiple outcomes or conditions. It is often used in scientific research to test the effects of multiple variables or factors on a particular outcome.

Applications of Hypothesis

Hypotheses are used in various fields to guide research and make predictions about the outcomes of experiments or observations. Here are some examples of how hypotheses are applied in different fields:

• Science : In scientific research, hypotheses are used to test the validity of theories and models that explain natural phenomena. For example, a hypothesis might be formulated to test the effects of a particular variable on a natural system, such as the effects of climate change on an ecosystem.
• Medicine : In medical research, hypotheses are used to test the effectiveness of treatments and therapies for specific conditions. For example, a hypothesis might be formulated to test the effects of a new drug on a particular disease.
• Psychology : In psychology, hypotheses are used to test theories and models of human behavior and cognition. For example, a hypothesis might be formulated to test the effects of a particular stimulus on the brain or behavior.
• Sociology : In sociology, hypotheses are used to test theories and models of social phenomena, such as the effects of social structures or institutions on human behavior. For example, a hypothesis might be formulated to test the effects of income inequality on crime rates.
• Business : In business research, hypotheses are used to test the validity of theories and models that explain business phenomena, such as consumer behavior or market trends. For example, a hypothesis might be formulated to test the effects of a new marketing campaign on consumer buying behavior.
• Engineering : In engineering, hypotheses are used to test the effectiveness of new technologies or designs. For example, a hypothesis might be formulated to test the efficiency of a new solar panel design.

How to write a Hypothesis

Here are the steps to follow when writing a hypothesis:

Identify the Research Question

The first step is to identify the research question that you want to answer through your study. This question should be clear, specific, and focused. It should be something that can be investigated empirically and that has some relevance or significance in the field.

Conduct a Literature Review

Before writing your hypothesis, it’s essential to conduct a thorough literature review to understand what is already known about the topic. This will help you to identify the research gap and formulate a hypothesis that builds on existing knowledge.

Determine the Variables

The next step is to identify the variables involved in the research question. A variable is any characteristic or factor that can vary or change. There are two types of variables: independent and dependent. The independent variable is the one that is manipulated or changed by the researcher, while the dependent variable is the one that is measured or observed as a result of the independent variable.

Formulate the Hypothesis

Based on the research question and the variables involved, you can now formulate your hypothesis. A hypothesis should be a clear and concise statement that predicts the relationship between the variables. It should be testable through empirical research and based on existing theory or evidence.

Write the Null Hypothesis

The null hypothesis is the opposite of the alternative hypothesis, which is the hypothesis that you are testing. The null hypothesis states that there is no significant difference or relationship between the variables. It is important to write the null hypothesis because it allows you to compare your results with what would be expected by chance.

Refine the Hypothesis

After formulating the hypothesis, it’s important to refine it and make it more precise. This may involve clarifying the variables, specifying the direction of the relationship, or making the hypothesis more testable.

Examples of Hypothesis

Here are a few examples of hypotheses in different fields:

• Psychology : “Increased exposure to violent video games leads to increased aggressive behavior in adolescents.”
• Biology : “Higher levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will lead to increased plant growth.”
• Sociology : “Individuals who grow up in households with higher socioeconomic status will have higher levels of education and income as adults.”
• Education : “Implementing a new teaching method will result in higher student achievement scores.”
• Marketing : “Customers who receive a personalized email will be more likely to make a purchase than those who receive a generic email.”
• Physics : “An increase in temperature will cause an increase in the volume of a gas, assuming all other variables remain constant.”
• Medicine : “Consuming a diet high in saturated fats will increase the risk of developing heart disease.”

Purpose of Hypothesis

The purpose of a hypothesis is to provide a testable explanation for an observed phenomenon or a prediction of a future outcome based on existing knowledge or theories. A hypothesis is an essential part of the scientific method and helps to guide the research process by providing a clear focus for investigation. It enables scientists to design experiments or studies to gather evidence and data that can support or refute the proposed explanation or prediction.

The formulation of a hypothesis is based on existing knowledge, observations, and theories, and it should be specific, testable, and falsifiable. A specific hypothesis helps to define the research question, which is important in the research process as it guides the selection of an appropriate research design and methodology. Testability of the hypothesis means that it can be proven or disproven through empirical data collection and analysis. Falsifiability means that the hypothesis should be formulated in such a way that it can be proven wrong if it is incorrect.

In addition to guiding the research process, the testing of hypotheses can lead to new discoveries and advancements in scientific knowledge. When a hypothesis is supported by the data, it can be used to develop new theories or models to explain the observed phenomenon. When a hypothesis is not supported by the data, it can help to refine existing theories or prompt the development of new hypotheses to explain the phenomenon.

When to use Hypothesis

Here are some common situations in which hypotheses are used:

• In scientific research , hypotheses are used to guide the design of experiments and to help researchers make predictions about the outcomes of those experiments.
• In social science research , hypotheses are used to test theories about human behavior, social relationships, and other phenomena.
• I n business , hypotheses can be used to guide decisions about marketing, product development, and other areas. For example, a hypothesis might be that a new product will sell well in a particular market, and this hypothesis can be tested through market research.

Characteristics of Hypothesis

Here are some common characteristics of a hypothesis:

• Testable : A hypothesis must be able to be tested through observation or experimentation. This means that it must be possible to collect data that will either support or refute the hypothesis.
• Falsifiable : A hypothesis must be able to be proven false if it is not supported by the data. If a hypothesis cannot be falsified, then it is not a scientific hypothesis.
• Clear and concise : A hypothesis should be stated in a clear and concise manner so that it can be easily understood and tested.
• Based on existing knowledge : A hypothesis should be based on existing knowledge and research in the field. It should not be based on personal beliefs or opinions.
• Specific : A hypothesis should be specific in terms of the variables being tested and the predicted outcome. This will help to ensure that the research is focused and well-designed.
• Tentative: A hypothesis is a tentative statement or assumption that requires further testing and evidence to be confirmed or refuted. It is not a final conclusion or assertion.
• Relevant : A hypothesis should be relevant to the research question or problem being studied. It should address a gap in knowledge or provide a new perspective on the issue.

Advantages of Hypothesis

Hypotheses have several advantages in scientific research and experimentation:

• Guides research: A hypothesis provides a clear and specific direction for research. It helps to focus the research question, select appropriate methods and variables, and interpret the results.
• Predictive powe r: A hypothesis makes predictions about the outcome of research, which can be tested through experimentation. This allows researchers to evaluate the validity of the hypothesis and make new discoveries.
• Facilitates communication: A hypothesis provides a common language and framework for scientists to communicate with one another about their research. This helps to facilitate the exchange of ideas and promotes collaboration.
• Efficient use of resources: A hypothesis helps researchers to use their time, resources, and funding efficiently by directing them towards specific research questions and methods that are most likely to yield results.
• Provides a basis for further research: A hypothesis that is supported by data provides a basis for further research and exploration. It can lead to new hypotheses, theories, and discoveries.
• Increases objectivity: A hypothesis can help to increase objectivity in research by providing a clear and specific framework for testing and interpreting results. This can reduce bias and increase the reliability of research findings.

Limitations of Hypothesis

Some Limitations of the Hypothesis are as follows:

• Limited to observable phenomena: Hypotheses are limited to observable phenomena and cannot account for unobservable or intangible factors. This means that some research questions may not be amenable to hypothesis testing.
• May be inaccurate or incomplete: Hypotheses are based on existing knowledge and research, which may be incomplete or inaccurate. This can lead to flawed hypotheses and erroneous conclusions.
• May be biased: Hypotheses may be biased by the researcher’s own beliefs, values, or assumptions. This can lead to selective interpretation of data and a lack of objectivity in research.
• Cannot prove causation: A hypothesis can only show a correlation between variables, but it cannot prove causation. This requires further experimentation and analysis.
• Limited to specific contexts: Hypotheses are limited to specific contexts and may not be generalizable to other situations or populations. This means that results may not be applicable in other contexts or may require further testing.
• May be affected by chance : Hypotheses may be affected by chance or random variation, which can obscure or distort the true relationship between variables.

About the author

Muhammad Hassan

Researcher, Academic Writer, Web developer

You may also like

Data Collection – Methods Types and Examples

Delimitations in Research – Types, Examples and...

Research Process – Steps, Examples and Tips

Research Design – Types, Methods and Examples

Institutional Review Board – Application Sample...

Evaluating Research – Process, Examples and...

Methodology of Social Science & International Relations

6 hypothesis , research question & literature review.

Hypothesis is a potential explanation to a phenomenon, and in a much more rigorous way. It’s the core of research design, after Research Question and Literature Review. 1,Hypothesis should be used in formal logic, if XXX ,then XXX. 2,Hypothesis should have clear boundaries and testable. 3,Hypothesis should never be regarded as certain events, and it’s must be theoretical.

6.1 With Research Question

Hypothesis is the potential explanation or mechanism to the Research Question.If we try to research what result in Nagorno-Karabakh War. We need follow the steps, Research Question, Literature Review, Theoretical Framework, Hypothesis. Theoretical framework in literature is the most important resource to figure out the hypothesis.The meaning and contribution should start from existed research.

Figure 6.1: literature review & hypothesis

6.2 With Literature Review

After diving in the facts and literatures, we possiblely can have some hypotheses. Last time I introduced 3 steps of searching literatures, now we connect those with hypothesis building.

If you want to research Nagorno-Karabakh War, there are many structures we can use, like ethnic conflicts, new independent countries’ nation-buildings, or territorial conflicts. We can choose ethnic conflicts.

Inside international ethinic conflicts, then there are lots of possible hypotheses.Like ethinic diversity, regime, nationalism, economic imbalance, resource trap, cross-broder ethenic group, colonazation.The Main difference is the benchmark, that’s why firstly we need should choose problem domain. The problem domain determains our hypothesis boundary, and potential choices.

Figure 6.2: literature review & hypothesis

6.3 Rethinking Hypothesis

Should we take as much explanation as possible ? Should we call one approach is the most convincing ?

6.4 Hypothesis & Proving

Figure 6.3: circular argument

6.5 From Science

Try to introduce some explanations to obsity. 1, In evolutionary biology, in case of hunger or unstable envrionment, evolutionary selection make us to prefer high-calorie food, and feel more attractive. 2, Genomics， Ceratin genes can make our body much easier to store calorie. 3, Microbiology， Intestinal Flora affect our digestion procedures 4, Biochemistry, How stomach send the signals to our brain. 5, Neuroscience, How our brain handle incentive of food.refined/calorie 6, Medicine, Some disease can cuase obesity, like metabolism. others, like diet, sleeping, pressure

6.6 From Social Science

1, Economics, food industry’s profit-orentiation and marketing enhance our preference. 2, Political Science, Interest Group, Lobbying affect the policy 3, Psychology, Pressure and our neuro-mental mechanism 4, Sociology, social class, inequality, popoular culture, habit 5, IR, Globalisation, the expansion of global suger. 6, Reflection, How BMI, obesity is defined and interpretation.

• UWF Libraries

Literature Review: Conducting & Writing

• Sample Literature Reviews
• Steps for Conducting a Lit Review
• Finding "The Literature"
• Organizing/Writing
• APA Style This link opens in a new window
• Chicago: Notes Bibliography This link opens in a new window
• MLA Style This link opens in a new window

Sample Lit Reviews from Communication Arts

Have an exemplary literature review.

• Literature Review Sample 1
• Literature Review Sample 2
• Literature Review Sample 3

Have you written a stellar literature review you care to share for teaching purposes?

Are you an instructor who has received an exemplary literature review and have permission from the student to post?

Please contact Britt McGowan at [email protected] for inclusion in this guide. All disciplines welcome and encouraged.

• << Previous: MLA Style
• Next: Get Help! >>
• Last Updated: Mar 22, 2024 9:37 AM
• URL: https://libguides.uwf.edu/litreview

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• CBE Life Sci Educ
• v.21(3); Fall 2022

Literature Reviews, Theoretical Frameworks, and Conceptual Frameworks: An Introduction for New Biology Education Researchers

Julie a. luft.

† Department of Mathematics, Social Studies, and Science Education, Mary Frances Early College of Education, University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602-7124

Sophia Jeong

‡ Department of Teaching & Learning, College of Education & Human Ecology, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43210

Robert Idsardi

§ Department of Biology, Eastern Washington University, Cheney, WA 99004

Grant Gardner

∥ Department of Biology, Middle Tennessee State University, Murfreesboro, TN 37132

Associated Data

To frame their work, biology education researchers need to consider the role of literature reviews, theoretical frameworks, and conceptual frameworks as critical elements of the research and writing process. However, these elements can be confusing for scholars new to education research. This Research Methods article is designed to provide an overview of each of these elements and delineate the purpose of each in the educational research process. We describe what biology education researchers should consider as they conduct literature reviews, identify theoretical frameworks, and construct conceptual frameworks. Clarifying these different components of educational research studies can be helpful to new biology education researchers and the biology education research community at large in situating their work in the broader scholarly literature.

INTRODUCTION

Discipline-based education research (DBER) involves the purposeful and situated study of teaching and learning in specific disciplinary areas ( Singer et al. , 2012 ). Studies in DBER are guided by research questions that reflect disciplines’ priorities and worldviews. Researchers can use quantitative data, qualitative data, or both to answer these research questions through a variety of methodological traditions. Across all methodologies, there are different methods associated with planning and conducting educational research studies that include the use of surveys, interviews, observations, artifacts, or instruments. Ensuring the coherence of these elements to the discipline’s perspective also involves situating the work in the broader scholarly literature. The tools for doing this include literature reviews, theoretical frameworks, and conceptual frameworks. However, the purpose and function of each of these elements is often confusing to new education researchers. The goal of this article is to introduce new biology education researchers to these three important elements important in DBER scholarship and the broader educational literature.

The first element we discuss is a review of research (literature reviews), which highlights the need for a specific research question, study problem, or topic of investigation. Literature reviews situate the relevance of the study within a topic and a field. The process may seem familiar to science researchers entering DBER fields, but new researchers may still struggle in conducting the review. Booth et al. (2016b) highlight some of the challenges novice education researchers face when conducting a review of literature. They point out that novice researchers struggle in deciding how to focus the review, determining the scope of articles needed in the review, and knowing how to be critical of the articles in the review. Overcoming these challenges (and others) can help novice researchers construct a sound literature review that can inform the design of the study and help ensure the work makes a contribution to the field.

The second and third highlighted elements are theoretical and conceptual frameworks. These guide biology education research (BER) studies, and may be less familiar to science researchers. These elements are important in shaping the construction of new knowledge. Theoretical frameworks offer a way to explain and interpret the studied phenomenon, while conceptual frameworks clarify assumptions about the studied phenomenon. Despite the importance of these constructs in educational research, biology educational researchers have noted the limited use of theoretical or conceptual frameworks in published work ( DeHaan, 2011 ; Dirks, 2011 ; Lo et al. , 2019 ). In reviewing articles published in CBE—Life Sciences Education ( LSE ) between 2015 and 2019, we found that fewer than 25% of the research articles had a theoretical or conceptual framework (see the Supplemental Information), and at times there was an inconsistent use of theoretical and conceptual frameworks. Clearly, these frameworks are challenging for published biology education researchers, which suggests the importance of providing some initial guidance to new biology education researchers.

Fortunately, educational researchers have increased their explicit use of these frameworks over time, and this is influencing educational research in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields. For instance, a quick search for theoretical or conceptual frameworks in the abstracts of articles in Educational Research Complete (a common database for educational research) in STEM fields demonstrates a dramatic change over the last 20 years: from only 778 articles published between 2000 and 2010 to 5703 articles published between 2010 and 2020, a more than sevenfold increase. Greater recognition of the importance of these frameworks is contributing to DBER authors being more explicit about such frameworks in their studies.

Collectively, literature reviews, theoretical frameworks, and conceptual frameworks work to guide methodological decisions and the elucidation of important findings. Each offers a different perspective on the problem of study and is an essential element in all forms of educational research. As new researchers seek to learn about these elements, they will find different resources, a variety of perspectives, and many suggestions about the construction and use of these elements. The wide range of available information can overwhelm the new researcher who just wants to learn the distinction between these elements or how to craft them adequately.

Our goal in writing this paper is not to offer specific advice about how to write these sections in scholarly work. Instead, we wanted to introduce these elements to those who are new to BER and who are interested in better distinguishing one from the other. In this paper, we share the purpose of each element in BER scholarship, along with important points on its construction. We also provide references for additional resources that may be beneficial to better understanding each element. Table 1 summarizes the key distinctions among these elements.

Comparison of literature reviews, theoretical frameworks, and conceptual reviews

This article is written for the new biology education researcher who is just learning about these different elements or for scientists looking to become more involved in BER. It is a result of our own work as science education and biology education researchers, whether as graduate students and postdoctoral scholars or newly hired and established faculty members. This is the article we wish had been available as we started to learn about these elements or discussed them with new educational researchers in biology.

LITERATURE REVIEWS

Purpose of a literature review.

A literature review is foundational to any research study in education or science. In education, a well-conceptualized and well-executed review provides a summary of the research that has already been done on a specific topic and identifies questions that remain to be answered, thus illustrating the current research project’s potential contribution to the field and the reasoning behind the methodological approach selected for the study ( Maxwell, 2012 ). BER is an evolving disciplinary area that is redefining areas of conceptual emphasis as well as orientations toward teaching and learning (e.g., Labov et al. , 2010 ; American Association for the Advancement of Science, 2011 ; Nehm, 2019 ). As a result, building comprehensive, critical, purposeful, and concise literature reviews can be a challenge for new biology education researchers.

Building Literature Reviews

There are different ways to approach and construct a literature review. Booth et al. (2016a) provide an overview that includes, for example, scoping reviews, which are focused only on notable studies and use a basic method of analysis, and integrative reviews, which are the result of exhaustive literature searches across different genres. Underlying each of these different review processes are attention to the s earch process, a ppraisa l of articles, s ynthesis of the literature, and a nalysis: SALSA ( Booth et al. , 2016a ). This useful acronym can help the researcher focus on the process while building a specific type of review.

However, new educational researchers often have questions about literature reviews that are foundational to SALSA or other approaches. Common questions concern determining which literature pertains to the topic of study or the role of the literature review in the design of the study. This section addresses such questions broadly while providing general guidance for writing a narrative literature review that evaluates the most pertinent studies.

The literature review process should begin before the research is conducted. As Boote and Beile (2005 , p. 3) suggested, researchers should be “scholars before researchers.” They point out that having a good working knowledge of the proposed topic helps illuminate avenues of study. Some subject areas have a deep body of work to read and reflect upon, providing a strong foundation for developing the research question(s). For instance, the teaching and learning of evolution is an area of long-standing interest in the BER community, generating many studies (e.g., Perry et al. , 2008 ; Barnes and Brownell, 2016 ) and reviews of research (e.g., Sickel and Friedrichsen, 2013 ; Ziadie and Andrews, 2018 ). Emerging areas of BER include the affective domain, issues of transfer, and metacognition ( Singer et al. , 2012 ). Many studies in these areas are transdisciplinary and not always specific to biology education (e.g., Rodrigo-Peiris et al. , 2018 ; Kolpikova et al. , 2019 ). These newer areas may require reading outside BER; fortunately, summaries of some of these topics can be found in the Current Insights section of the LSE website.

In focusing on a specific problem within a broader research strand, a new researcher will likely need to examine research outside BER. Depending upon the area of study, the expanded reading list might involve a mix of BER, DBER, and educational research studies. Determining the scope of the reading is not always straightforward. A simple way to focus one’s reading is to create a “summary phrase” or “research nugget,” which is a very brief descriptive statement about the study. It should focus on the essence of the study, for example, “first-year nonmajor students’ understanding of evolution,” “metacognitive prompts to enhance learning during biochemistry,” or “instructors’ inquiry-based instructional practices after professional development programming.” This type of phrase should help a new researcher identify two or more areas to review that pertain to the study. Focusing on recent research in the last 5 years is a good first step. Additional studies can be identified by reading relevant works referenced in those articles. It is also important to read seminal studies that are more than 5 years old. Reading a range of studies should give the researcher the necessary command of the subject in order to suggest a research question.

Given that the research question(s) arise from the literature review, the review should also substantiate the selected methodological approach. The review and research question(s) guide the researcher in determining how to collect and analyze data. Often the methodological approach used in a study is selected to contribute knowledge that expands upon what has been published previously about the topic (see Institute of Education Sciences and National Science Foundation, 2013 ). An emerging topic of study may need an exploratory approach that allows for a description of the phenomenon and development of a potential theory. This could, but not necessarily, require a methodological approach that uses interviews, observations, surveys, or other instruments. An extensively studied topic may call for the additional understanding of specific factors or variables; this type of study would be well suited to a verification or a causal research design. These could entail a methodological approach that uses valid and reliable instruments, observations, or interviews to determine an effect in the studied event. In either of these examples, the researcher(s) may use a qualitative, quantitative, or mixed methods methodological approach.

Even with a good research question, there is still more reading to be done. The complexity and focus of the research question dictates the depth and breadth of the literature to be examined. Questions that connect multiple topics can require broad literature reviews. For instance, a study that explores the impact of a biology faculty learning community on the inquiry instruction of faculty could have the following review areas: learning communities among biology faculty, inquiry instruction among biology faculty, and inquiry instruction among biology faculty as a result of professional learning. Biology education researchers need to consider whether their literature review requires studies from different disciplines within or outside DBER. For the example given, it would be fruitful to look at research focused on learning communities with faculty in STEM fields or in general education fields that result in instructional change. It is important not to be too narrow or too broad when reading. When the conclusions of articles start to sound similar or no new insights are gained, the researcher likely has a good foundation for a literature review. This level of reading should allow the researcher to demonstrate a mastery in understanding the researched topic, explain the suitability of the proposed research approach, and point to the need for the refined research question(s).

The literature review should include the researcher’s evaluation and critique of the selected studies. A researcher may have a large collection of studies, but not all of the studies will follow standards important in the reporting of empirical work in the social sciences. The American Educational Research Association ( Duran et al. , 2006 ), for example, offers a general discussion about standards for such work: an adequate review of research informing the study, the existence of sound and appropriate data collection and analysis methods, and appropriate conclusions that do not overstep or underexplore the analyzed data. The Institute of Education Sciences and National Science Foundation (2013) also offer Common Guidelines for Education Research and Development that can be used to evaluate collected studies.

Because not all journals adhere to such standards, it is important that a researcher review each study to determine the quality of published research, per the guidelines suggested earlier. In some instances, the research may be fatally flawed. Examples of such flaws include data that do not pertain to the question, a lack of discussion about the data collection, poorly constructed instruments, or an inadequate analysis. These types of errors result in studies that are incomplete, error-laden, or inaccurate and should be excluded from the review. Most studies have limitations, and the author(s) often make them explicit. For instance, there may be an instructor effect, recognized bias in the analysis, or issues with the sample population. Limitations are usually addressed by the research team in some way to ensure a sound and acceptable research process. Occasionally, the limitations associated with the study can be significant and not addressed adequately, which leaves a consequential decision in the hands of the researcher. Providing critiques of studies in the literature review process gives the reader confidence that the researcher has carefully examined relevant work in preparation for the study and, ultimately, the manuscript.

A solid literature review clearly anchors the proposed study in the field and connects the research question(s), the methodological approach, and the discussion. Reviewing extant research leads to research questions that will contribute to what is known in the field. By summarizing what is known, the literature review points to what needs to be known, which in turn guides decisions about methodology. Finally, notable findings of the new study are discussed in reference to those described in the literature review.

Within published BER studies, literature reviews can be placed in different locations in an article. When included in the introductory section of the study, the first few paragraphs of the manuscript set the stage, with the literature review following the opening paragraphs. Cooper et al. (2019) illustrate this approach in their study of course-based undergraduate research experiences (CUREs). An introduction discussing the potential of CURES is followed by an analysis of the existing literature relevant to the design of CUREs that allows for novel student discoveries. Within this review, the authors point out contradictory findings among research on novel student discoveries. This clarifies the need for their study, which is described and highlighted through specific research aims.

A literature reviews can also make up a separate section in a paper. For example, the introduction to Todd et al. (2019) illustrates the need for their research topic by highlighting the potential of learning progressions (LPs) and suggesting that LPs may help mitigate learning loss in genetics. At the end of the introduction, the authors state their specific research questions. The review of literature following this opening section comprises two subsections. One focuses on learning loss in general and examines a variety of studies and meta-analyses from the disciplines of medical education, mathematics, and reading. The second section focuses specifically on LPs in genetics and highlights student learning in the midst of LPs. These separate reviews provide insights into the stated research question.

Suggestions and Advice

A well-conceptualized, comprehensive, and critical literature review reveals the understanding of the topic that the researcher brings to the study. Literature reviews should not be so big that there is no clear area of focus; nor should they be so narrow that no real research question arises. The task for a researcher is to craft an efficient literature review that offers a critical analysis of published work, articulates the need for the study, guides the methodological approach to the topic of study, and provides an adequate foundation for the discussion of the findings.

In our own writing of literature reviews, there are often many drafts. An early draft may seem well suited to the study because the need for and approach to the study are well described. However, as the results of the study are analyzed and findings begin to emerge, the existing literature review may be inadequate and need revision. The need for an expanded discussion about the research area can result in the inclusion of new studies that support the explanation of a potential finding. The literature review may also prove to be too broad. Refocusing on a specific area allows for more contemplation of a finding.

It should be noted that there are different types of literature reviews, and many books and articles have been written about the different ways to embark on these types of reviews. Among these different resources, the following may be helpful in considering how to refine the review process for scholarly journals:

• Booth, A., Sutton, A., & Papaioannou, D. (2016a). Systemic approaches to a successful literature review (2nd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage. This book addresses different types of literature reviews and offers important suggestions pertaining to defining the scope of the literature review and assessing extant studies.
• Booth, W. C., Colomb, G. G., Williams, J. M., Bizup, J., & Fitzgerald, W. T. (2016b). The craft of research (4th ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. This book can help the novice consider how to make the case for an area of study. While this book is not specifically about literature reviews, it offers suggestions about making the case for your study.
• Galvan, J. L., & Galvan, M. C. (2017). Writing literature reviews: A guide for students of the social and behavioral sciences (7th ed.). Routledge. This book offers guidance on writing different types of literature reviews. For the novice researcher, there are useful suggestions for creating coherent literature reviews.

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORKS

Purpose of theoretical frameworks.

As new education researchers may be less familiar with theoretical frameworks than with literature reviews, this discussion begins with an analogy. Envision a biologist, chemist, and physicist examining together the dramatic effect of a fog tsunami over the ocean. A biologist gazing at this phenomenon may be concerned with the effect of fog on various species. A chemist may be interested in the chemical composition of the fog as water vapor condenses around bits of salt. A physicist may be focused on the refraction of light to make fog appear to be “sitting” above the ocean. While observing the same “objective event,” the scientists are operating under different theoretical frameworks that provide a particular perspective or “lens” for the interpretation of the phenomenon. Each of these scientists brings specialized knowledge, experiences, and values to this phenomenon, and these influence the interpretation of the phenomenon. The scientists’ theoretical frameworks influence how they design and carry out their studies and interpret their data.

Within an educational study, a theoretical framework helps to explain a phenomenon through a particular lens and challenges and extends existing knowledge within the limitations of that lens. Theoretical frameworks are explicitly stated by an educational researcher in the paper’s framework, theory, or relevant literature section. The framework shapes the types of questions asked, guides the method by which data are collected and analyzed, and informs the discussion of the results of the study. It also reveals the researcher’s subjectivities, for example, values, social experience, and viewpoint ( Allen, 2017 ). It is essential that a novice researcher learn to explicitly state a theoretical framework, because all research questions are being asked from the researcher’s implicit or explicit assumptions of a phenomenon of interest ( Schwandt, 2000 ).

Selecting Theoretical Frameworks

Theoretical frameworks are one of the most contemplated elements in our work in educational research. In this section, we share three important considerations for new scholars selecting a theoretical framework.

The first step in identifying a theoretical framework involves reflecting on the phenomenon within the study and the assumptions aligned with the phenomenon. The phenomenon involves the studied event. There are many possibilities, for example, student learning, instructional approach, or group organization. A researcher holds assumptions about how the phenomenon will be effected, influenced, changed, or portrayed. It is ultimately the researcher’s assumption(s) about the phenomenon that aligns with a theoretical framework. An example can help illustrate how a researcher’s reflection on the phenomenon and acknowledgment of assumptions can result in the identification of a theoretical framework.

In our example, a biology education researcher may be interested in exploring how students’ learning of difficult biological concepts can be supported by the interactions of group members. The phenomenon of interest is the interactions among the peers, and the researcher assumes that more knowledgeable students are important in supporting the learning of the group. As a result, the researcher may draw on Vygotsky’s (1978) sociocultural theory of learning and development that is focused on the phenomenon of student learning in a social setting. This theory posits the critical nature of interactions among students and between students and teachers in the process of building knowledge. A researcher drawing upon this framework holds the assumption that learning is a dynamic social process involving questions and explanations among students in the classroom and that more knowledgeable peers play an important part in the process of building conceptual knowledge.

It is important to state at this point that there are many different theoretical frameworks. Some frameworks focus on learning and knowing, while other theoretical frameworks focus on equity, empowerment, or discourse. Some frameworks are well articulated, and others are still being refined. For a new researcher, it can be challenging to find a theoretical framework. Two of the best ways to look for theoretical frameworks is through published works that highlight different frameworks.

When a theoretical framework is selected, it should clearly connect to all parts of the study. The framework should augment the study by adding a perspective that provides greater insights into the phenomenon. It should clearly align with the studies described in the literature review. For instance, a framework focused on learning would correspond to research that reported different learning outcomes for similar studies. The methods for data collection and analysis should also correspond to the framework. For instance, a study about instructional interventions could use a theoretical framework concerned with learning and could collect data about the effect of the intervention on what is learned. When the data are analyzed, the theoretical framework should provide added meaning to the findings, and the findings should align with the theoretical framework.

A study by Jensen and Lawson (2011) provides an example of how a theoretical framework connects different parts of the study. They compared undergraduate biology students in heterogeneous and homogeneous groups over the course of a semester. Jensen and Lawson (2011) assumed that learning involved collaboration and more knowledgeable peers, which made Vygotsky’s (1978) theory a good fit for their study. They predicted that students in heterogeneous groups would experience greater improvement in their reasoning abilities and science achievements with much of the learning guided by the more knowledgeable peers.

In the enactment of the study, they collected data about the instruction in traditional and inquiry-oriented classes, while the students worked in homogeneous or heterogeneous groups. To determine the effect of working in groups, the authors also measured students’ reasoning abilities and achievement. Each data-collection and analysis decision connected to understanding the influence of collaborative work.

Their findings highlighted aspects of Vygotsky’s (1978) theory of learning. One finding, for instance, posited that inquiry instruction, as a whole, resulted in reasoning and achievement gains. This links to Vygotsky (1978) , because inquiry instruction involves interactions among group members. A more nuanced finding was that group composition had a conditional effect. Heterogeneous groups performed better with more traditional and didactic instruction, regardless of the reasoning ability of the group members. Homogeneous groups worked better during interaction-rich activities for students with low reasoning ability. The authors attributed the variation to the different types of helping behaviors of students. High-performing students provided the answers, while students with low reasoning ability had to work collectively through the material. In terms of Vygotsky (1978) , this finding provided new insights into the learning context in which productive interactions can occur for students.

Another consideration in the selection and use of a theoretical framework pertains to its orientation to the study. This can result in the theoretical framework prioritizing individuals, institutions, and/or policies ( Anfara and Mertz, 2014 ). Frameworks that connect to individuals, for instance, could contribute to understanding their actions, learning, or knowledge. Institutional frameworks, on the other hand, offer insights into how institutions, organizations, or groups can influence individuals or materials. Policy theories provide ways to understand how national or local policies can dictate an emphasis on outcomes or instructional design. These different types of frameworks highlight different aspects in an educational setting, which influences the design of the study and the collection of data. In addition, these different frameworks offer a way to make sense of the data. Aligning the data collection and analysis with the framework ensures that a study is coherent and can contribute to the field.

New understandings emerge when different theoretical frameworks are used. For instance, Ebert-May et al. (2015) prioritized the individual level within conceptual change theory (see Posner et al. , 1982 ). In this theory, an individual’s knowledge changes when it no longer fits the phenomenon. Ebert-May et al. (2015) designed a professional development program challenging biology postdoctoral scholars’ existing conceptions of teaching. The authors reported that the biology postdoctoral scholars’ teaching practices became more student-centered as they were challenged to explain their instructional decision making. According to the theory, the biology postdoctoral scholars’ dissatisfaction in their descriptions of teaching and learning initiated change in their knowledge and instruction. These results reveal how conceptual change theory can explain the learning of participants and guide the design of professional development programming.

The communities of practice (CoP) theoretical framework ( Lave, 1988 ; Wenger, 1998 ) prioritizes the institutional level , suggesting that learning occurs when individuals learn from and contribute to the communities in which they reside. Grounded in the assumption of community learning, the literature on CoP suggests that, as individuals interact regularly with the other members of their group, they learn about the rules, roles, and goals of the community ( Allee, 2000 ). A study conducted by Gehrke and Kezar (2017) used the CoP framework to understand organizational change by examining the involvement of individual faculty engaged in a cross-institutional CoP focused on changing the instructional practice of faculty at each institution. In the CoP, faculty members were involved in enhancing instructional materials within their department, which aligned with an overarching goal of instituting instruction that embraced active learning. Not surprisingly, Gehrke and Kezar (2017) revealed that faculty who perceived the community culture as important in their work cultivated institutional change. Furthermore, they found that institutional change was sustained when key leaders served as mentors and provided support for faculty, and as faculty themselves developed into leaders. This study reveals the complexity of individual roles in a COP in order to support institutional instructional change.

It is important to explicitly state the theoretical framework used in a study, but elucidating a theoretical framework can be challenging for a new educational researcher. The literature review can help to identify an applicable theoretical framework. Focal areas of the review or central terms often connect to assumptions and assertions associated with the framework that pertain to the phenomenon of interest. Another way to identify a theoretical framework is self-reflection by the researcher on personal beliefs and understandings about the nature of knowledge the researcher brings to the study ( Lysaght, 2011 ). In stating one’s beliefs and understandings related to the study (e.g., students construct their knowledge, instructional materials support learning), an orientation becomes evident that will suggest a particular theoretical framework. Theoretical frameworks are not arbitrary , but purposefully selected.

With experience, a researcher may find expanded roles for theoretical frameworks. Researchers may revise an existing framework that has limited explanatory power, or they may decide there is a need to develop a new theoretical framework. These frameworks can emerge from a current study or the need to explain a phenomenon in a new way. Researchers may also find that multiple theoretical frameworks are necessary to frame and explore a problem, as different frameworks can provide different insights into a problem.

Finally, it is important to recognize that choosing “x” theoretical framework does not necessarily mean a researcher chooses “y” methodology and so on, nor is there a clear-cut, linear process in selecting a theoretical framework for one’s study. In part, the nonlinear process of identifying a theoretical framework is what makes understanding and using theoretical frameworks challenging. For the novice scholar, contemplating and understanding theoretical frameworks is essential. Fortunately, there are articles and books that can help:

• Creswell, J. W. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (5th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage. This book provides an overview of theoretical frameworks in general educational research.
• Ding, L. (2019). Theoretical perspectives of quantitative physics education research. Physical Review Physics Education Research , 15 (2), 020101-1–020101-13. This paper illustrates how a DBER field can use theoretical frameworks.
• Nehm, R. (2019). Biology education research: Building integrative frameworks for teaching and learning about living systems. Disciplinary and Interdisciplinary Science Education Research , 1 , ar15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s43031-019-0017-6 . This paper articulates the need for studies in BER to explicitly state theoretical frameworks and provides examples of potential studies.
• Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research & evaluation methods: Integrating theory and practice . Sage. This book also provides an overview of theoretical frameworks, but for both research and evaluation.

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORKS

Purpose of a conceptual framework.

A conceptual framework is a description of the way a researcher understands the factors and/or variables that are involved in the study and their relationships to one another. The purpose of a conceptual framework is to articulate the concepts under study using relevant literature ( Rocco and Plakhotnik, 2009 ) and to clarify the presumed relationships among those concepts ( Rocco and Plakhotnik, 2009 ; Anfara and Mertz, 2014 ). Conceptual frameworks are different from theoretical frameworks in both their breadth and grounding in established findings. Whereas a theoretical framework articulates the lens through which a researcher views the work, the conceptual framework is often more mechanistic and malleable.

Conceptual frameworks are broader, encompassing both established theories (i.e., theoretical frameworks) and the researchers’ own emergent ideas. Emergent ideas, for example, may be rooted in informal and/or unpublished observations from experience. These emergent ideas would not be considered a “theory” if they are not yet tested, supported by systematically collected evidence, and peer reviewed. However, they do still play an important role in the way researchers approach their studies. The conceptual framework allows authors to clearly describe their emergent ideas so that connections among ideas in the study and the significance of the study are apparent to readers.

Constructing Conceptual Frameworks

Including a conceptual framework in a research study is important, but researchers often opt to include either a conceptual or a theoretical framework. Either may be adequate, but both provide greater insight into the research approach. For instance, a research team plans to test a novel component of an existing theory. In their study, they describe the existing theoretical framework that informs their work and then present their own conceptual framework. Within this conceptual framework, specific topics portray emergent ideas that are related to the theory. Describing both frameworks allows readers to better understand the researchers’ assumptions, orientations, and understanding of concepts being investigated. For example, Connolly et al. (2018) included a conceptual framework that described how they applied a theoretical framework of social cognitive career theory (SCCT) to their study on teaching programs for doctoral students. In their conceptual framework, the authors described SCCT, explained how it applied to the investigation, and drew upon results from previous studies to justify the proposed connections between the theory and their emergent ideas.

In some cases, authors may be able to sufficiently describe their conceptualization of the phenomenon under study in an introduction alone, without a separate conceptual framework section. However, incomplete descriptions of how the researchers conceptualize the components of the study may limit the significance of the study by making the research less intelligible to readers. This is especially problematic when studying topics in which researchers use the same terms for different constructs or different terms for similar and overlapping constructs (e.g., inquiry, teacher beliefs, pedagogical content knowledge, or active learning). Authors must describe their conceptualization of a construct if the research is to be understandable and useful.

There are some key areas to consider regarding the inclusion of a conceptual framework in a study. To begin with, it is important to recognize that conceptual frameworks are constructed by the researchers conducting the study ( Rocco and Plakhotnik, 2009 ; Maxwell, 2012 ). This is different from theoretical frameworks that are often taken from established literature. Researchers should bring together ideas from the literature, but they may be influenced by their own experiences as a student and/or instructor, the shared experiences of others, or thought experiments as they construct a description, model, or representation of their understanding of the phenomenon under study. This is an exercise in intellectual organization and clarity that often considers what is learned, known, and experienced. The conceptual framework makes these constructs explicitly visible to readers, who may have different understandings of the phenomenon based on their prior knowledge and experience. There is no single method to go about this intellectual work.

Reeves et al. (2016) is an example of an article that proposed a conceptual framework about graduate teaching assistant professional development evaluation and research. The authors used existing literature to create a novel framework that filled a gap in current research and practice related to the training of graduate teaching assistants. This conceptual framework can guide the systematic collection of data by other researchers because the framework describes the relationships among various factors that influence teaching and learning. The Reeves et al. (2016) conceptual framework may be modified as additional data are collected and analyzed by other researchers. This is not uncommon, as conceptual frameworks can serve as catalysts for concerted research efforts that systematically explore a phenomenon (e.g., Reynolds et al. , 2012 ; Brownell and Kloser, 2015 ).

Sabel et al. (2017) used a conceptual framework in their exploration of how scaffolds, an external factor, interact with internal factors to support student learning. Their conceptual framework integrated principles from two theoretical frameworks, self-regulated learning and metacognition, to illustrate how the research team conceptualized students’ use of scaffolds in their learning ( Figure 1 ). Sabel et al. (2017) created this model using their interpretations of these two frameworks in the context of their teaching.

Conceptual framework from Sabel et al. (2017) .

A conceptual framework should describe the relationship among components of the investigation ( Anfara and Mertz, 2014 ). These relationships should guide the researcher’s methods of approaching the study ( Miles et al. , 2014 ) and inform both the data to be collected and how those data should be analyzed. Explicitly describing the connections among the ideas allows the researcher to justify the importance of the study and the rigor of the research design. Just as importantly, these frameworks help readers understand why certain components of a system were not explored in the study. This is a challenge in education research, which is rooted in complex environments with many variables that are difficult to control.

For example, Sabel et al. (2017) stated: “Scaffolds, such as enhanced answer keys and reflection questions, can help students and instructors bridge the external and internal factors and support learning” (p. 3). They connected the scaffolds in the study to the three dimensions of metacognition and the eventual transformation of existing ideas into new or revised ideas. Their framework provides a rationale for focusing on how students use two different scaffolds, and not on other factors that may influence a student’s success (self-efficacy, use of active learning, exam format, etc.).

In constructing conceptual frameworks, researchers should address needed areas of study and/or contradictions discovered in literature reviews. By attending to these areas, researchers can strengthen their arguments for the importance of a study. For instance, conceptual frameworks can address how the current study will fill gaps in the research, resolve contradictions in existing literature, or suggest a new area of study. While a literature review describes what is known and not known about the phenomenon, the conceptual framework leverages these gaps in describing the current study ( Maxwell, 2012 ). In the example of Sabel et al. (2017) , the authors indicated there was a gap in the literature regarding how scaffolds engage students in metacognition to promote learning in large classes. Their study helps fill that gap by describing how scaffolds can support students in the three dimensions of metacognition: intelligibility, plausibility, and wide applicability. In another example, Lane (2016) integrated research from science identity, the ethic of care, the sense of belonging, and an expertise model of student success to form a conceptual framework that addressed the critiques of other frameworks. In a more recent example, Sbeglia et al. (2021) illustrated how a conceptual framework influences the methodological choices and inferences in studies by educational researchers.

Sometimes researchers draw upon the conceptual frameworks of other researchers. When a researcher’s conceptual framework closely aligns with an existing framework, the discussion may be brief. For example, Ghee et al. (2016) referred to portions of SCCT as their conceptual framework to explain the significance of their work on students’ self-efficacy and career interests. Because the authors’ conceptualization of this phenomenon aligned with a previously described framework, they briefly mentioned the conceptual framework and provided additional citations that provided more detail for the readers.

Within both the BER and the broader DBER communities, conceptual frameworks have been used to describe different constructs. For example, some researchers have used the term “conceptual framework” to describe students’ conceptual understandings of a biological phenomenon. This is distinct from a researcher’s conceptual framework of the educational phenomenon under investigation, which may also need to be explicitly described in the article. Other studies have presented a research logic model or flowchart of the research design as a conceptual framework. These constructions can be quite valuable in helping readers understand the data-collection and analysis process. However, a model depicting the study design does not serve the same role as a conceptual framework. Researchers need to avoid conflating these constructs by differentiating the researchers’ conceptual framework that guides the study from the research design, when applicable.

Explicitly describing conceptual frameworks is essential in depicting the focus of the study. We have found that being explicit in a conceptual framework means using accepted terminology, referencing prior work, and clearly noting connections between terms. This description can also highlight gaps in the literature or suggest potential contributions to the field of study. A well-elucidated conceptual framework can suggest additional studies that may be warranted. This can also spur other researchers to consider how they would approach the examination of a phenomenon and could result in a revised conceptual framework.

It can be challenging to create conceptual frameworks, but they are important. Below are two resources that could be helpful in constructing and presenting conceptual frameworks in educational research:

• Maxwell, J. A. (2012). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage. Chapter 3 in this book describes how to construct conceptual frameworks.
• Ravitch, S. M., & Riggan, M. (2016). Reason & rigor: How conceptual frameworks guide research . Los Angeles, CA: Sage. This book explains how conceptual frameworks guide the research questions, data collection, data analyses, and interpretation of results.

CONCLUDING THOUGHTS

Literature reviews, theoretical frameworks, and conceptual frameworks are all important in DBER and BER. Robust literature reviews reinforce the importance of a study. Theoretical frameworks connect the study to the base of knowledge in educational theory and specify the researcher’s assumptions. Conceptual frameworks allow researchers to explicitly describe their conceptualization of the relationships among the components of the phenomenon under study. Table 1 provides a general overview of these components in order to assist biology education researchers in thinking about these elements.

It is important to emphasize that these different elements are intertwined. When these elements are aligned and complement one another, the study is coherent, and the study findings contribute to knowledge in the field. When literature reviews, theoretical frameworks, and conceptual frameworks are disconnected from one another, the study suffers. The point of the study is lost, suggested findings are unsupported, or important conclusions are invisible to the researcher. In addition, this misalignment may be costly in terms of time and money.

Conducting a literature review, selecting a theoretical framework, and building a conceptual framework are some of the most difficult elements of a research study. It takes time to understand the relevant research, identify a theoretical framework that provides important insights into the study, and formulate a conceptual framework that organizes the finding. In the research process, there is often a constant back and forth among these elements as the study evolves. With an ongoing refinement of the review of literature, clarification of the theoretical framework, and articulation of a conceptual framework, a sound study can emerge that makes a contribution to the field. This is the goal of BER and education research.

Supplementary Material

• Allee, V. (2000). Knowledge networks and communities of learning . OD Practitioner , 32 ( 4 ), 4–13. [ Google Scholar ]
• Allen, M. (2017). The Sage encyclopedia of communication research methods (Vols. 1–4 ). Los Angeles, CA: Sage. 10.4135/9781483381411 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• American Association for the Advancement of Science. (2011). Vision and change in undergraduate biology education: A call to action . Washington, DC. [ Google Scholar ]
• Anfara, V. A., Mertz, N. T. (2014). Setting the stage . In Anfara, V. A., Mertz, N. T. (eds.), Theoretical frameworks in qualitative research (pp. 1–22). Sage. [ Google Scholar ]
• Barnes, M. E., Brownell, S. E. (2016). Practices and perspectives of college instructors on addressing religious beliefs when teaching evolution . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 15 ( 2 ), ar18. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.15-11-0243 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Boote, D. N., Beile, P. (2005). Scholars before researchers: On the centrality of the dissertation literature review in research preparation . Educational Researcher , 34 ( 6 ), 3–15. 10.3102/0013189x034006003 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Booth, A., Sutton, A., Papaioannou, D. (2016a). Systemic approaches to a successful literature review (2nd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage. [ Google Scholar ]
• Booth, W. C., Colomb, G. G., Williams, J. M., Bizup, J., Fitzgerald, W. T. (2016b). The craft of research (4th ed.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Brownell, S. E., Kloser, M. J. (2015). Toward a conceptual framework for measuring the effectiveness of course-based undergraduate research experiences in undergraduate biology . Studies in Higher Education , 40 ( 3 ), 525–544. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2015.1004234 [ Google Scholar ]
• Connolly, M. R., Lee, Y. G., Savoy, J. N. (2018). The effects of doctoral teaching development on early-career STEM scholars’ college teaching self-efficacy . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 17 ( 1 ), ar14. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.17-02-0039 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cooper, K. M., Blattman, J. N., Hendrix, T., Brownell, S. E. (2019). The impact of broadly relevant novel discoveries on student project ownership in a traditional lab course turned CURE . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 18 ( 4 ), ar57. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.19-06-0113 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Creswell, J. W. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (5th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage. [ Google Scholar ]
• DeHaan, R. L. (2011). Education research in the biological sciences: A nine decade review (Paper commissioned by the NAS/NRC Committee on the Status, Contributions, and Future Directions of Discipline Based Education Research) . Washington, DC: National Academies Press. Retrieved May 20, 2022, from www7.nationalacademies.org/bose/DBER_Mee ting2_commissioned_papers_page.html [ Google Scholar ]
• Ding, L. (2019). Theoretical perspectives of quantitative physics education research . Physical Review Physics Education Research , 15 ( 2 ), 020101. [ Google Scholar ]
• Dirks, C. (2011). The current status and future direction of biology education research . Paper presented at: Second Committee Meeting on the Status, Contributions, and Future Directions of Discipline-Based Education Research, 18–19 October (Washington, DC). Retrieved May 20, 2022, from http://sites.nationalacademies.org/DBASSE/BOSE/DBASSE_071087 [ Google Scholar ]
• Duran, R. P., Eisenhart, M. A., Erickson, F. D., Grant, C. A., Green, J. L., Hedges, L. V., Schneider, B. L. (2006). Standards for reporting on empirical social science research in AERA publications: American Educational Research Association . Educational Researcher , 35 ( 6 ), 33–40. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ebert-May, D., Derting, T. L., Henkel, T. P., Middlemis Maher, J., Momsen, J. L., Arnold, B., Passmore, H. A. (2015). Breaking the cycle: Future faculty begin teaching with learner-centered strategies after professional development . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 14 ( 2 ), ar22. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.14-12-0222 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Galvan, J. L., Galvan, M. C. (2017). Writing literature reviews: A guide for students of the social and behavioral sciences (7th ed.). New York, NY: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315229386 [ Google Scholar ]
• Gehrke, S., Kezar, A. (2017). The roles of STEM faculty communities of practice in institutional and departmental reform in higher education . American Educational Research Journal , 54 ( 5 ), 803–833. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831217706736 [ Google Scholar ]
• Ghee, M., Keels, M., Collins, D., Neal-Spence, C., Baker, E. (2016). Fine-tuning summer research programs to promote underrepresented students’ persistence in the STEM pathway . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 15 ( 3 ), ar28. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.16-01-0046 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Institute of Education Sciences & National Science Foundation. (2013). Common guidelines for education research and development . Retrieved May 20, 2022, from www.nsf.gov/pubs/2013/nsf13126/nsf13126.pdf
• Jensen, J. L., Lawson, A. (2011). Effects of collaborative group composition and inquiry instruction on reasoning gains and achievement in undergraduate biology . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 10 ( 1 ), 64–73. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.19-05-0098 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kolpikova, E. P., Chen, D. C., Doherty, J. H. (2019). Does the format of preclass reading quizzes matter? An evaluation of traditional and gamified, adaptive preclass reading quizzes . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 18 ( 4 ), ar52. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.19-05-0098 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Labov, J. B., Reid, A. H., Yamamoto, K. R. (2010). Integrated biology and undergraduate science education: A new biology education for the twenty-first century? CBE—Life Sciences Education , 9 ( 1 ), 10–16. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.09-12-0092 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lane, T. B. (2016). Beyond academic and social integration: Understanding the impact of a STEM enrichment program on the retention and degree attainment of underrepresented students . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 15 ( 3 ), ar39. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.16-01-0070 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lave, J. (1988). Cognition in practice: Mind, mathematics and culture in everyday life . New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lo, S. M., Gardner, G. E., Reid, J., Napoleon-Fanis, V., Carroll, P., Smith, E., Sato, B. K. (2019). Prevailing questions and methodologies in biology education research: A longitudinal analysis of research in CBE — Life Sciences Education and at the Society for the Advancement of Biology Education Research . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 18 ( 1 ), ar9. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.18-08-0164 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lysaght, Z. (2011). Epistemological and paradigmatic ecumenism in “Pasteur’s quadrant:” Tales from doctoral research . In Official Conference Proceedings of the Third Asian Conference on Education in Osaka, Japan . Retrieved May 20, 2022, from http://iafor.org/ace2011_offprint/ACE2011_offprint_0254.pdf
• Maxwell, J. A. (2012). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage. [ Google Scholar ]
• Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., Saldaña, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis (3rd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage. [ Google Scholar ]
• Nehm, R. (2019). Biology education research: Building integrative frameworks for teaching and learning about living systems . Disciplinary and Interdisciplinary Science Education Research , 1 , ar15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s43031-019-0017-6 [ Google Scholar ]
• Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research & evaluation methods: Integrating theory and practice . Los Angeles, CA: Sage. [ Google Scholar ]
• Perry, J., Meir, E., Herron, J. C., Maruca, S., Stal, D. (2008). Evaluating two approaches to helping college students understand evolutionary trees through diagramming tasks . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 7 ( 2 ), 193–201. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.07-01-0007 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W., Gertzog, W. A. (1982). Accommodation of a scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change . Science Education , 66 ( 2 ), 211–227. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ravitch, S. M., Riggan, M. (2016). Reason & rigor: How conceptual frameworks guide research . Los Angeles, CA: Sage. [ Google Scholar ]
• Reeves, T. D., Marbach-Ad, G., Miller, K. R., Ridgway, J., Gardner, G. E., Schussler, E. E., Wischusen, E. W. (2016). A conceptual framework for graduate teaching assistant professional development evaluation and research . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 15 ( 2 ), es2. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.15-10-0225 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Reynolds, J. A., Thaiss, C., Katkin, W., Thompson, R. J. Jr. (2012). Writing-to-learn in undergraduate science education: A community-based, conceptually driven approach . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 11 ( 1 ), 17–25. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.11-08-0064 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rocco, T. S., Plakhotnik, M. S. (2009). Literature reviews, conceptual frameworks, and theoretical frameworks: Terms, functions, and distinctions . Human Resource Development Review , 8 ( 1 ), 120–130. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484309332617 [ Google Scholar ]
• Rodrigo-Peiris, T., Xiang, L., Cassone, V. M. (2018). A low-intensity, hybrid design between a “traditional” and a “course-based” research experience yields positive outcomes for science undergraduate freshmen and shows potential for large-scale application . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 17 ( 4 ), ar53. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.17-11-0248 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sabel, J. L., Dauer, J. T., Forbes, C. T. (2017). Introductory biology students’ use of enhanced answer keys and reflection questions to engage in metacognition and enhance understanding . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 16 ( 3 ), ar40. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.16-10-0298 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sbeglia, G. C., Goodridge, J. A., Gordon, L. H., Nehm, R. H. (2021). Are faculty changing? How reform frameworks, sampling intensities, and instrument measures impact inferences about student-centered teaching practices . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 20 ( 3 ), ar39. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.20-11-0259 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schwandt, T. A. (2000). Three epistemological stances for qualitative inquiry: Interpretivism, hermeneutics, and social constructionism . In Denzin, N. K., Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 189–213). Los Angeles, CA: Sage. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sickel, A. J., Friedrichsen, P. (2013). Examining the evolution education literature with a focus on teachers: Major findings, goals for teacher preparation, and directions for future research . Evolution: Education and Outreach , 6 ( 1 ), 23. https://doi.org/10.1186/1936-6434-6-23 [ Google Scholar ]
• Singer, S. R., Nielsen, N. R., Schweingruber, H. A. (2012). Discipline-based education research: Understanding and improving learning in undergraduate science and engineering . Washington, DC: National Academies Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Todd, A., Romine, W. L., Correa-Menendez, J. (2019). Modeling the transition from a phenotypic to genotypic conceptualization of genetics in a university-level introductory biology context . Research in Science Education , 49 ( 2 ), 569–589. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-017-9626-2 [ Google Scholar ]
• Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning as a social system . Systems Thinker , 9 ( 5 ), 2–3. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ziadie, M. A., Andrews, T. C. (2018). Moving evolution education forward: A systematic analysis of literature to identify gaps in collective knowledge for teaching . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 17 ( 1 ), ar11. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.17-08-0190 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]