Developing the core principles of responsible knowledge management (rKM): Section 3.2.1 – Why the integrative literature review approach

This article is Section 3.2.1 of Chapter 3 of a series featuring my Master’s thesis The Emerging Concept of Responsible Knowledge Management (rKM): Identifying and Formulating the Core Principles of rKM.

The plurality of approaches to literature reviews, as highlighted by Grant and Booth¹, demonstrates the considerable diversity in how literature can be synthesised. Their study identified no fewer than fourteen types of reviews, each differing in purpose. But, upon closer examination, the distinctions between the types often appeared to blur. While some reviews emphasise systematic rigour, others allow for greater flexibility in synthesis, many share overlapping characteristics. Curiously, Grant and Booth’s typology does not explicitly include the ILR, though it does contain approximations of it, such as the mixed studies review and the qualitative evidence synthesis. This somewhat ambiguous typology underscores the methodological fluidity of literature reviews in general and highlights the haziness of integrative approaches in particular.

Beyond issues of categorisation, the execution of literature reviews bearing the same label can vary significantly, as Hopia, Latvala and Liimatainen² have demonstrated. They critically appraised the methodological adherence to the type of ‘integrative review’ and found considerable discrepancies in how these reviews were executed, particularly regarding literature search strategies, data evaluation, and synthesis. This inconsistency suggests that despite the prominence of the category, there is no singularly agreed-upon framework for ensuring its methodological rigour. The lack of consensus on quality criteria further complicates the field, as studies using the same methodological terminology may differ significantly in terms of systematic execution and analytical depth. This realisation reinforces the necessity of clarifying and justifying all choices, particularly when engaging with an emergent research domain such as rKM.

Snyder³ offers a tripartite division of literature review approaches – systematic, semisystematic, and integrative – each serving distinct research purposes. Of these, the integrative review is particularly well-suited for the study of an emerging concept, as it allows for the synthesis of diverse sources while facilitating theoretical advancement. Unlike systematic reviews, which are constrained by predefined inclusion criteria, or semisystematic reviews, which focus on mapping theoretical frameworks, integrative reviews permit a more holistic engagement with literature across disciplines. This flexibility is crucial in studying rKM, where existing research remains fragmented, and no singular definition or framework has yet been established.

Further supporting the suitability of the ILR, Torraco⁴ emphasises its utility in constructing initial conceptual frameworks. In contrast to reviews that merely summarise existing literature, an integrative review actively synthesises insights to generate new theoretical perspectives. This thesis aligns with Torraco’s rationale by leveraging an integrative approach to inductively derive thematic categories relevant to rKM. Given that rKM lacks a cohesive body of literature, the integrative review allows for the identification of underlying patterns, concepts, and tensions across disparate sources.

The integrative review’s adaptability can also be examined through the perspectives of Elsbach and van Knippenberg⁵ and Alvesson and Sandberg⁶. While the former advocate for an integrative approach to synthesising existing research, the latter propose a problematising review that challenges foundational assumptions. But, these methodological stances are more complementary than contradictory. Both approaches ultimately aim to advance theoretical understanding, one by restructuring existing knowledge and the other by questioning its premises. Given the nascent state of rKM research, an out-of-the-box approach, favouring conceptual emergence over exhaustive inclusion, is particularly valuable⁷. Here, less is more. It ensures a more coherent synthesis of insights, facilitating meaningful theoretical development. Table 1 summarises conceptualisations of the integrative literature review pertinent to this thesis.

To enhance methodological rigour, this thesis follows the recommendations of Whittemore and Knafl⁸, who propose strategies for strengthening the integrative review process. Their guidelines (following Cooper⁹) emphasise clear problem identification, systematic literature searching, explicit data evaluation criteria, rigorous data analysis, and transparent synthesis. Within the constraints of this thesis, a more limited inclusion criterion is adopted (as opposed to systematic literature review) to ensure manageability while still maintaining methodological integrity. By focusing on peer-reviewed literature that directly engages with themes of knowledge management, responsibility, inclusivity and sustainability, the review remains both comprehensive and analytically robust. Table 2 summarises the main decisions and issues at each of the five stages of the integrative literature review conducted for this thesis.

In this thesis, the ILR focuses on publications from 2000 to 2025, ensuring both historical grounding and engagement with contemporary debates, and draws on Scopus and Google Scholar as primary databases to access a diverse range of academic discussions.

Next part: Section 3.2.2 – Grounded theory extrapolation.

Article source: Koskinen, H. M. (2025). The Emerging Concept of Responsible Knowledge Management (rKM): Identifying and Formulating the Core Principles of rKM. (Master’s Thesis, LUT University).

Header image source: Created by Hanna M. Koskinen using ChatGPT.

References: