54

Integrative Literature Reviews: A Method or an Epistemology?

Hachapan Uachotikoon*
Piyapat Maneepong*

Abstract

An integrative literature review is becoming one of the most
widely used approaches for contemporary understanding, knowledge,
models, conceptual frameworks, and perspectives. It is generally
regarded with disparate functions of research depending on what
ontology is used. To address the topic of whether integrative literature
reviews are a method or an epistemology or something else, literature
has been thoroughly searched for evidence to support each view.
Logical reasoning also is used in this article. We firstly define the
meaning of each element: integrative literature review, types of
literature review, methodology, epistemology, and method to develop
a position and to reach the conclusion.

Keywords: Integrative literature review, methodology, epistemology, ontology,
method






* Ph.D. Student, the Graduate School of Human Resource Development, the National
Institute of Development Administration (NIDA)

Volume 5 Number 5 July - December 2013 (2556)
55

What is an Integrative Literature Review?
Torraco (2005) provided a definition of integrative literature review as a form
of research that reviews, critiques, and synthesizes representative literature on a topic
in an integrated way such that it generates new frameworks and perspectives on the
topic. It is a distinctive form of research characterized by the focus on a topical area,
and its own methodology (Torraco, 2005; Callahan, 2010). Several integrative
literature reviews have made significant contributions to the body of knowledge of
human resource development, and other relevant fields. Its importance is such that
Human Resource Development Reviewa major journal in HRDhas published in
every issue at least one integrative literature review (Torraco, 2005). To write a good
integrative literature review requires skill and insights. It is never less rigorous or
easier to write than other types of research articles. In addition, it is not a mere list
summarizing or describing multiple pieces of literature, but synthesizes representative
literature to produce a new model, conceptual framework, or other unique conceptions
informed by the author's intimate knowledge of the topic (Torraco, 2005).

Types of Literature Reviews
According to Cronin, Ryan, and Coughlan (2008); Souza, Silva, and Carvalho
(2010); and Whittemore and Knafl (2005), under the umbrella of literature review,
there are five types of reviews: traditional or narrative literature review, integrative
literature review, systematic review, meta-analysis, and qualitative review or meta-
synthesis.
1. Traditional or narrative literature review draws conclusions about the topic in
question by critiquing and summarizing a body of literature on a subject area.
It is selective in the material used but the selection criteria are not always
informed (Cronin et al., 2008).
2. Integrative literature review is the broadest type of methods that allows
researchers to collect and combine data from experimental and non-

Volume 5 Number 2 July December 2013 (2556)
56

experimental studies in order to understand an identified phenomenon. The
purposes of integrative literature reviews include defining concepts, reviewing
theories and evidence, and methodological analysis (Souza et al., 2010;
Whittemore & Knalf, 2005).
3. Systematic review focuses primarily on experimental studies and demands
careful synthesis of all investigations related to one specific area (Souza et al.
2010).
4. Meta-analysis is a form of systematic review that integrates a large body of
quantitative findings to enhance understanding. It uses standardized statistical
procedure to analyze data, draws conclusions, and detects patterns and
relationships (Cronin et al., 2008).
5. Meta-synthesis is a non-statistical technique used to enhance understanding by
integrating, evaluating, and interpreting qualitative studies. It is employed as a
key element in transforming individual findings from studies that are based on
phenomenological, grounded theory, or ethnography epistemologies, into new
conceptualization and interpretations (Cronin et al., 2008).
Though Whittemore and Knafl (2005) indicated that recent evidence-based
practice initiatives have increased the need for and the production of all types of
literature reviews; the integrative review is the only approach that allows for the
combination of diverse methodologies (for example, experimental and non-
experimental research) and has the potential to play a greater role in evidence-based
practice.

Distinguishing an Integrative Literature Review from Other Reviews
Attempts have been made to distinguish the integrative review approach from
other review approaches and to propose methodological strategies specific to
integrative reviews to enhance the rigor of the process. With respect to integrative
literature reviews, strategies to enhance data collection and extraction have been
developed; however, methods of analysis, synthesis, and conclusion drawing remain

Volume 5 Number 5 July - December 2013 (2556)
57
poorly formulated (Whittemore & Knafl, 2005). Regarding this shortfall, Torraco
(2005) established a rigorous method for authors to use in doing integrative literature
reviews:
The authors strategy for selecting the literature to be included in the study
should be described. The literature is the data of an integrative literature
review. Authors should ensure that recently published literature and older
literature are both systematically searched. Authors can examine older
literature by reviewing the citations from the articles obtained through the
search of selected databases. The criteria used for retaining or discarding the
literature yielded by the literature searches should also be stated. Authors
should consider using a table, endnote, or appendix to list the sources of
literature reviewed in the study. (p. 360)
Moreover, Callahan (2010) indicated that a hallmark of a good integrative
literature review is that it has a methodology that clearly outlines:
(a) where the literature was found (databases and search engines), (b) when
the search was conducted (because database contents change frequently), (c)
who conducted the search, (d) how the literature was found (keyword
combinations), (e) What number of articles appeared from each combination of
keywords and the final count of included articles (data set), and (f) why some
articles were chosen for inclusion over others (selection criteria) (p. 301)

Why Write an Integrative Literature Review?
Integrative literature reviews address both mature topics and new, emerging
topics. Features of a review article differ depending on the maturity of the topic it
addresses.
In a mature topic, the size of its literature is larger, and there is a corresponding
growth and development in the knowledge base of the topic. In such an expanding and
more diversified knowledge base of a mature topic, there is the need for a review,
critique, and the potential re-conceptualization of the topic, and an integrative

Volume 5 Number 2 July December 2013 (2556)
58

literature review of the studies in the field will answer to that need (Torraco,2005;
Rocco & Plakhotnik, 2009).
As for a new and emerging topic, an integrative literature review that addresses
such a topic would benefit from a holistic conceptualization and synthesis of the
literature to date. With the topic being relatively new and having not yet undergone a
comprehensive review of the literature, the review is more likely to lead to an initial or
preliminary conceptualization of the topic (i.e., a new model or framework) rather than
a re-conceptualization of previous models (Torraco, 2005).
For both mature and emerging topics, it is expected that the knowledge from
the literature will be synthesized into a model or conceptual framework that offers a
new perspective on the topic. In either case of a new or existing topic, the integrative
literature review requires conceptual and methodological rigor. It requires a
description of the research design where search terms used to collect the literature as
data, criteria for a pieces inclusion or exclusion, and data analysis techniques are
described (Rocco, Stein, & Lee, 2003; Rocco & Plakhotnik, 2009).

What Is Methodology?
Methodology is the science and study of methods and the assumptions about
the ways in which knowledge is produced It is the philosophical stance or worldview
that underlies and informs a style of research. It is concerned with the logic of
scientific inquiry; in particular with investigating the potentialities and limitations of
particular techniques or procedures. Methodology encompasses a theory of how an
inquiry should proceed; and it involves analysis of the assumptions, principles, and
procedures in a particular approach to inquiry (Grix, 2002; Harding, 1987; Sapsford,
2006; Schwandt, 2001).
Practically, methodology is the strategy or plan of action that lies behind the
choice and use of particular methods (Crotty, 1998). Thus, it is concerned with why,
what, from where, when and how data is collected and analyzed (Scotland, 2012).
Methodology asks the question: How can the inquirer go about finding out whatever

Volume 5 Number 5 July - December 2013 (2556)
59
they believe can be known? (Guba & Lincoln, 1994).
A good summary of methodology is given by Grix (2001, p.36), who
described that a methodology is related to discussion process, consisting of research
questions or hypotheses, a conceptual, study methods, and justification. It is, most of
all, driven by certain ontological and epistemological assumptions.

What Is Epistemology?
Epistemology is derived from the Greek words episteme (knowledge) and logos
(reason). It means the nature and forms of knowledge and the theory of knowledge
(Cohen, Manion, & Morrison; Harding, 1987). It is concerned with the theory of
knowledge in regard to its methods, validation, and the possible ways of gaining
knowledge of social reality, whatever it is understood to be (Grix, 2002). Furthermore,
sociologists of knowledge characterize epistemologies as strategies for justifying
beliefs Harding (1987).
Epistemology focuses on the process of gathering knowledge. It asks the
questions of what is the nature of the relationship between the would-be knower and
what can be known? Who can be a knower? What tests beliefs must pass in order to be
legitimated as knowledge? And what kinds of things can be known? (Grix, 2002;
Guba & Lincoln, 1994; Harding, 1987). In short, epistemology is about how
knowledge can be created, acquired, and communicated (Scotland, 2012).
There are two contrasting epistemological positions within the perspectives of
positivism and interpretivism. Positivists hold the belief that the world conforms to
laws of causation, which could be objectively tested; they advocate the application of
the natural science methods to the study of social science (de Vries, 2005; Grix 2002).
On the other hand, interpretivists believe that multiple realities exist as subjective
constructions of the mind. They see the world as socially constructed and try to
understand phenomena through analyzing meanings that people attach to them (de
Vries, 2005).


Volume 5 Number 2 July December 2013 (2556)
60


What Is a Method?
Methods are procedures, tools and techniques of research that the researcher
uses to answer the research questions (Schwandt, 2001; McLean, 2012, slide 13).
They are the practical activities of research: sampling, data collection, data
management, data analysis, and reporting (Carter & Little, 2007). Methods are used
for gathering evidence, collate and analyse data evaluate and synthesize data, and
interpret findings (Blaikie, 2000; Cronin et al., 2008; Harding, 1987; Creswell, 2014).
Methods can be categorized by the research approaches as qualitative methods
and quantitative methods. In the qualitative approach, researchers seek understanding
of the phenomenon or process as shaped by the meanings people bring to them by
employing different methods such as interview, case study, observation (Denzin &
Lincoln, 2005; Arghode, 2012). Harding (1987) indicated that qualitative inquiry
consists of three categories of methods: listening to or interrogating informants,
observing behavior, or examining historical trace and records. As for quantitative
methods, they are used in the scientific paradigm where it seeks predictions and
generalizations; thus, methods often generate quantitative data. Examples include:
standardized tests, closed ended questionnaires and descriptions of phenomena using
standardized observation tools Methods of analysis involve descriptive and inferential
statistics. Inferential statistics allow sample results to be generalized to populations
(Pring, 2000; Scotland, 2012).

Is an Integrative Literature Review an Epistemology?
In this section, we are going to argue that an integrative literature review is
equivalent to a methodology, which is equivalent to an epistemology, and then a
method and reseach repectively. A syllogism as well as deduction will be used as a
way of justification.

An Integrative Literature Review as a Methodology

Volume 5 Number 5 July - December 2013 (2556)
61
Literature has shown that an integrative literature review can be considered a
methodology by clearly indicating so or inferring so through its methodology:
Souza et al. (2010) clearly stated that the integrative review is the methodology
that provides synthesis of knowledge and applicability of results of significant
studies to practice.
Callahan (2010) indicated the presence of a methodology in an integrative
literature review:
A hallmark of a good integrative literature review is that it has a
methodology that clearly outlines (a) where the literature was found
(databases and search engines), (b) when the search was conducted
(because database contents change frequently), (c) who conducted the
search, (d) how the literature was found (keyword combinations), (e)
what number of articles appeared from each combination of keywords
and the final count of included articles (data set), and (f) why some
articles were chosen for inclusion over others (selection criteria). (p.
301)
Russell, (2005) and Whittemore & Knafl, (2005) pointed out the methodology
of an integrative literature review in its five stage process: 1) problem
formulation, 2) data collection or literature search, 3) evaluation of data, 4)
data analysis, and 5) interpretation and presentation of results
Souza et al. (2010) described its 6 stage process which is clearly the process of
a methodology: 1) preparing the guiding question, 2) searching or sampling the
literature, 3) data collection, 4) critical analysis of the studies, 5) discussion of
results, and 6) presentation of the review.
With all the above-mentioned indications and inference, it can be reasonably
concluded that an integrative literature review is a methodology (Figure 1).

Volume 5 Number 2 July December 2013 (2556)
62


Figure 1. An integrative literature review is a methodology.

An Integrative Literature Review as an Epistemology
According to Grix (2001), methodology is concerned with how a particular
piece of research should be undertaken or how to acquire knowledge. And
epistemology is concerned with knowledge gathering process (Grix, 2002). Moreover,
epistemological assumptions are concerned with how knowledge can be created,
acquired and communicated (Scotland, 2012). These definitions reveal the closeness in
meaning of the two terms. This assumption was supported by Carter and Littles
(2011) notion that methodologies justify methods, and methods produce knowledge,
so methodologies have epistemic content. Furthermore, Creswell (2014) accentuated
the interchangeability of these two terms by stating that they both shared the meaning
of worldview:
I have chosen to use the term worldview as meaning a basic set of beliefs
that guide action (Guba, 1990, p. 17). Others have called them paradigms
(Lincoln, Lynham & Guba, 2011; Mertens, 2009), epistemologies, and
ontologies (Crotty, 1998), or broadly conceived research methodologies
(Neuman, 2009, p. 6)
This closeness in meaning of the two terms is again confirmed by McLean
(2012) that an epistemology is equivalent to a methodology. Therefore, it can be
logically concluded that methodology is synonymous with epistemology (Figure 2).

Volume 5 Number 5 July - December 2013 (2556)
63

Figure 2. Methodology is synonymous with epistemology.

With such conclusions as: a) an integrative literature review is a methodology
and b) a methodology is an epistemology, the deduction must be that an integrative
literature review is an epistemology, as displayed graphically in Figure 3.

Figure 3. The deduction of an integrative literature review as an epistemology.

An Integrative Literature Review as a Method
Several articles indicate that an integrative literature review is a method; for
example: Pompeo, Rossi, and Galvo (2009) stated that an integrative literature review
is a research method that allows for gathering and synthesizing available evidence
about a topic; Whittemore and Knafl (2005) cited Broome (1993) as saying that an
integrative review is a specific review method summarizing past empirical or

Volume 5 Number 2 July December 2013 (2556)
64

theoretical literature to provide a more comprehensive understanding of a particular
phenomenon or problem; and that they are the broadest type of research review
methods that allows for the simultaneous inclusion of experimental and non-
experimental research so as to more fully understand a phenomenon of concern.
These characteristics in the literature lead us to believe that an integrative
literature review is a method (see Figure 4).

Figure 4. An integrative literature review is a method.

An Integrative Literature Review is neither Method nor Epistemology
To this point, we have logically illustrated that an integrative literature review
is an epistemology, a methodology, and a method. However, not everyone agrees, as
some see these as different parts of research; Grix (2001) argued that an epistemology
and a methodology are different elements in research:
The difficulty in understanding just what the term 'methodology' means has not
been helped by the fact that it is used interchangeably with 'research methods'
and is often considered, mistakenly, to be close in meaning to 'epistemology,'
'approaches,' and even 'paradigm'. (p. 36)

Figure 5 features
the
interrelationships of the three elements in research. An
epistemology is concerned with what knowledge is and how to get to it, while a
methodology is only about the systematic process to get to whatever form of
knowledge is delineated by the epistemology; and a method is about the specific
techniques in getting the knowledge. These elements are clearly disparate and have
their own specific places in a research (Grix, 2002).

Volume 5 Number 5 July - December 2013 (2556)
65

Figure 5 The interrelationship of the building blocks in research (Adapted from Grix,
2002, p. 180).

Carter and Little (2007) who depicted the functional difference of the three
elements in Figure 5. The diagram of research in Figure 6 shows the sequential
relationship of the three elements. One can see that an epistemology modifies a
methodology, which, in turn, justifies, guides, and evaluates methods.

Figure 6. The relationship between an epistemology, a methodology, and a method
(Adapted from Carter & Little, 2007, p. 1317).

Volume 5 Number 2 July December 2013 (2556)
66

All work together in the inquiry for more knowledge (see Figure 7).

Figure 7. An epistemology, a methodology, and a method are not the same, but they
work together in research.

With each element being different, the deduction that an integrative literature
review is an epistemology no longer holds true. And as an integrative literature review
has a clear presence of a methodology, it rules out the chance of being a method,
either; hence, an integrative literature review is neither an epistemology nor a method.

An Integrative Literature Review as a Research
According to Torraco (2005), an integrative literature review is a form of
research that reviews, critiques, and synthesizes representative literature on a topic in
an integrated way such that it generates new frameworks and perspectives on the topic.
In keeping with Torraco, Callahan (2010) cited Yorks (2008) as saying that the
most important distinction of an integrative literature review is that it can be
considered, in and of itself, a form of research that can stand alone. And Ganong
(1987) argued that integrative reviews should be held to the same standards of clarity,
rigor, and replication as research. Billay and Myrick (2008) and Russell (2005) agreed
with Ganong that integrative literature reviews should be regarded as a form of
research.

Volume 5 Number 5 July - December 2013 (2556)
67
From these arguments, we can also reasonably conclude that an integrative
literature review is a form of research. However, this does not move the discussion
much forward, as research is not separate from epistemology, methodology, or
method. All relate to research. The question of this article remains ambiguous.

Conclusion
While there is no clear answer to the ambiguity of whether an integrative
literature review is an epistemology, a methodology, or a method, the predominance of
articles have suggested that it is both an epistemology and a methodology, two words
that are usually used as synonyms. However, there is a minority perspective that
epistemology, methodology, and method all have unique meanings, and this rules out
the claim that an integrative literature review can be equivalent to multiple elements at
the same time. Thus, as in most research, we have to embrace and celebrate the
ambiguity.

References
Arghode, V. (2012). Qualitative and quantitative research: Paradigmatic differences.
Global Education Journal,12(4), 155-163.
Bailey, D. E., & Kurland, N. B. (2002). A review of telework research: Findings, new
directions, and lessons for the study of modern work. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 23, 383-400. doi:10.1002/job.144
Billay, D., & Myrick, F. (2008). Preceptorship: An integrative review of the literature.
Nurse Education in Practice, 8, 258266. doi:10.1016/j.nepr.2007.09.005
Blaikie, N. (2000). Designing Social Research. Cambridge, UK: Polity.
Broome, M.E. (1993). Integrative literature reviews for the development of concepts.
In B. L. Rodgers, & K. A. Knafl (Eds.), Concept Development in Nursing, (2nd
ed.) (pp. 231250). Philadelphia, PA: W. B. Saunders.
Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. (2000). The social life of information. Boston: Harvard
Business School Press.
Callahan, J. L. (2010). Constructing a manuscript: Distinguishing integrative literature
reviews and conceptual theory articles. Human Resource Development Review,
9(3), 300-304. doi:10.1177/1534484310371492
Carter, S. M., & Little, M. (2007). Justifying knowledge, justifying method, taking

Volume 5 Number 2 July December 2013 (2556)
68

action: Epistemologies, methodologies, and methods in qualitative research.
Qualitative Health Research, 17(10), 1316-1328.
doi:10.1177/1049732307306927
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2007). Research methods in education (6th
ed.). London: Routledge.
Cook, T. D., Scott, D. N., & Brown, J. S. (1999). Bridging epistemologies: The
generative dance between organizational knowledge and organizational
knowing. Organization Science, 10(4), 381-400.
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches (4th ed.). London: Sage.
Cronin, P., Ryan, F., & Coughlan, M. (2008). Undertaking a literature review: A step-
by-step approach. British Journal of Nursing, 17(1), 38-43.
Crotty, M. (1998). The foundations of social research. London: Sage.
de Vries, E. J. (2005). Epistemology and methodology in case research: A comparison
between European and American IS journals. In Proceedings of the 13th
European Conference on Information Systems, Information Systems in a
Rapidly Changing Economy, ECIS 2005, Regensburg, Germany, May 26-28,
2005. 1309-1320.
D'Abate, C. P., Eddy, E. R., & Tannenbaum, S. I. (2003). What's in a name? A
literature based approach to understanding mentoring, coaching and other
constructs. Human Resource Development Review, 2(4), 260-384.
doi:10.1177/1534484303255033
Ford, J. K., & Weissbein, D. A. (1997). Transfer of training: An updated review and
analysis. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 10(2), 22-41.
doi:10.1111/j.1937-8327.1997.tb00047.x
Edwards, J. R., & Rothbard, N. P. (2000). Mechanisms linking work and family:
Clarifying the relationship between work and family constructs. Academy of
Management Review, 25(1), 178-199. doi:10.2307/259269
Ganong, L. H. (1987). Integrative reviews of nursing research. Research in Nursing &
Health, 10 (1), 111.
Grix, J. (2001). Demystifying postgraduate research from MA to PhD. Birmingham,
UK: MPG Books.
Grix, J. (2002), Introducing students to the generic terminology of social research.
Politics, 22(3), 175-186. doi:10.1111/1467-9256.00173
Guba, E.G. (1990). The alternative paradigm dialog. In E.G. Guba (Ed.),
The paradigm dialog (pp.17-30). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In

Volume 5 Number 5 July - December 2013 (2556)
69
N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp.
105-117). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Guzzo, R. A., & Dickson, M. W. (1996). Teams in organizations: Recent research on
performance and effectiveness. Annual Review of Psychology, 47, 307-338.
doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.47.1.307
Hansen, C. D., & Brooks, A. K. (1994). A review of cross-cultural research on human
resource development. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 5(1), 55-74.
doi:10.1002/hrdq.3920050107
Harding, S. (1987). Introduction: Is there a feminist method? Feminism and
methodology: Social science issues (1-14). Bloomington: Indiana University
Press.
Kalleberg, A. L. (2000). Nonstandard employment relations: Part-time, temporary and
contract work. Annual Review of Sociology, 26, 341.
doi:10.1146/annurev.soc.26.1.341
Liker, J. K., Haddad, C. J. & Karin, J. (1999). Perspectives on technology and work
organization. Annual Review of Sociology, 25, 575-596.
doi:10.1146/annurev.soc.25.1.575
Lincoln, Y. S., Lynham, S. A., & Guba, E. G. (2011). Paradigmatic controversies,
contradictions, and emerging confluences revisited. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S.
Lincoln (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (4th ed.) (pp. 97
128). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Mertens, D. (2009). Transformative research and evaluation. New York: Guilford.
McLean, G. N.. (2012, October 6, p.m.). HRD5003: Epistemology and inquiry in
HROD: What, why, and how of research. Bangkok: NIDA. [PowerPoints ].
Neuman, L. W. (2009). Understanding research. Boston, MA: Pearson.
Pompeo. D. A., Rossi. L. A., & Galvo, C. M. (2009). Integrative literature review:
The initial step in the validation process of nursing diagnoses. Acta paul.
Enferm 22(4), 434-438. doi:10.1590/S0103-21002009000400014
Porras, J. I., & Robertson, P. J. (1987). Organizational development theory: A
typology and evaluation. Research in Organizational Change and
Development, 1, 1-57.
Pring, R. (2000). Philosophy of educational research . London: Continuum.
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.
doi:10.1177/1534484309332617
Rocco, T., Stein, D., & Lee, C. (2003). An exploratory examination of the literature on

Volume 5 Number 2 July December 2013 (2556)
70

age and HRD policy development. Human Resource Development Review, 2,
155-180. doi:10.1177/1534484303255034
Russell, C. L. (2005). An overview of the integrative research review. Progress in
Transplantation (Aliso Viejo, Calif.), 15(1), 8-13.
Sapsford, R. (2006). Methodology. In V. Jupp. (Ed.). The Sage dictionary of social
research methods (pp. 175-177). London: Sage.
Schwandt, T. A. (2001). Dictionary of qualitative inquiry (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Scotland, J. (2012). Exploring the philosophical underpinnings of research: Relating
ontology and epistemology to the methodology and methods of the scientific,
interpretive, and critical research paradigms. English Language Teaching, 5(9),
9-16. doi:10.5539/elt.v5n9p9
Smith, V. (1997). New forms of work organization. Annual Review of Sociology, 23,
315-339. doi:10.1146/annurev.soc.23.1.315
Souza M. T., Silva, M. D., & Carvalho, R. (2010). Integrative review: What is it? How
to do it? Einstein 2010, 8(1 Pt 1), 102-106.
Torraco, R. J. (2005). Writing integrative literature reviews: Guidelines and examples.
Human Resource Development Review, 4(3), 356-367.
doi:10.1177/1534484305278283
Whittemore, R., & Knafl, K. (2005). The integrative review: Updated methodology.
Journal of Advanced Nursing, 52(5), 546553. doi:10.1111/j.1365-
2648.2005.03621.x
Yorks, L. (2008). What we know, what we dont know, what we need to know
Integrative literature reviews are research. Human Resource Development
Review, 7, 139-141. doi:10.1177/1534484308316395