In this discussion topic, we will explore some resources that are designed to help students understand the concept of a literature review.

    
  the article by Ted Zorn and Nittaya Campbell, “Improving the Writing of Literature Reviews through Literature Integration Exercise”  

 
  After reviewing the material on the Literature Review posted above, please return to your annotated bibliography and begin developing “categories” to help you to organize your sources. Post one category below and list several sources that might fill that category. Remember that some sources may fall into more than one category.  

172

Business Communication Quarterly, Volume 69, Number 2, June 2006 172-183
DOI: 10.1177/1080569906287960
© 2006 by the Association for Business Communication

INNOVATIVE ASSIGNMENTS

IMPROVING THE WRITING
OF LITERATURE REVIEWS
THROUGH A LITERATURE
INTEGRATION EXERCISE
Ted Zorn
Nittaya Campbell
University of Waikato, New Zealand

STUDENTS ARE OFTEN required to write literature reviews in
advanced business communication courses, especially as part of a
research project. Likewise, in the workplace, business communicators
may need to review the literature in analyzing a problem or proposing
a solution. However, instructors often find that even students who oth-
erwise write well are not able to write good literature reviews. The pur-
pose of this article is to demonstrate a method for teaching students
some of the key techniques for writing literature reviews—particularly
the challenge of synthesizing multiple sources of information into a
coherent analysis of the literature.

A recent publication in this journal (Nienhaus, 2004) provided a
useful set of guidelines for helping students improve their citation per-
formance. Other published works have provided useful advice on
search strategies (e.g., McGuire, 1981; Spears, 1983; Suchan & Snow,
1981). Although it has been argued that “perhaps the most difficult
part of [producing a literature review] lies in the final step, that of syn-
thesizing the information selected and critiqued” (Parker et al., 1998),
very little guidance is available on how to synthesize effectively.

As a genre, the literature review is more typically associated with
academic articles, dissertations, and theses (Rowley & Slack, 2004)
and has not received the attention it deserves in the business com-
munication discipline. A search through the past two and a half
decades of this journal and the Journal of Business Communication turns

BCQ287960.qxd 4/12/2006 6:51 PM Page 172

Zorn, Campbell / IMPROVING LITERATURE REVIEWS 173

up no article that addresses the writing of literature reviews in any
depth. Business communication textbooks generally point out, in the
unit on proposals and reports, the need to review relevant literature
but do not provide sufficient explanation, let alone exercises, on how
to present the information effectively. Therefore, this article focuses
primarily on that aspect of producing a literature review.

First, we briefly discuss the importance of literature reviews, the
key problems that students experience, and some guidelines for writ-
ing carefully synthesized reviews of the literature. These are the same
points that we typically cover in a brief lecture to students on how to
do literature reviews. Then, we present an exercise that we developed
for teaching the practice of writing literature reviews. The exercise
involves integrating four pieces of research into a coherent synthesis
of the literature, then providing students with examples that demon-
strate the key features of well-written literature reviews.

WHY CONDUCT A LITERATURE REVIEW?

While the answer to the question, “Why conduct a literature review?”
may seem obvious to business communication teachers, to students a
literature review often seems like just another academic require-
ment—something they are required to do for their courses but that
has little relevance to their future work (unless they intend a career
in academia). However, literature reviews have many potential bene-
fits both in and beyond the university setting. They often support a
research proposal or report, but they are also conducted to synthesize
information for other purposes (Parker et al., 1998).

First, literature reviews are indeed important for scholarly research
within the university setting. They can be a source of ideas, research
questions, and hunches to explore. That is, through finding exem-
plars of well-executed research, interesting ideas that are not particu-
larly well executed, or gaps in the body of knowledge in a discipline,
we can identify possibilities for future research. Literature reviews also
help scholars avoid “reinventing the wheel” by enabling them to build
on what others have done. Finally, literature reviews help researchers
develop an argument for their study by demonstrating that they are
extending existing knowledge—building on what is already out there
and filling gaps that exist. Thus, if students are to write research
reports effectively in their university studies, they must master the writ-
ing of literature reviews.

BCQ287960.qxd 4/12/2006 6:51 PM Page 173

Second, and often more impressive to students as a justification,
literature reviews have multiple real-world applications. For example,
they can be sources of tools or solutions to organizational problems.
The first author often tells students how he first learned the practical
value of literature reviews when he was a training and development
specialist for a private company. His boss at the time often reviewed,
or required him to review, the literature as a means of identifying key
strategies or principles to include in their corporate training
programs. Literature reviews not only provided useful content for the
programs, but they also gave the training programs a sense of credi-
bility and currency because the trainers were able to cite recent
research to support their recommendations for management practice.

Literature reviews can also inform decisions or support proposals
or conclusions with credible evidence. This point is of particular rele-
vance to business communication courses, where proposal and report
writing is commonly a major component of the syllabus. Literature
reviews synthesize what is known about an issue or practice. An
alumna of our school, who is now a highly successful consultant, fre-
quently gives presentations in our classes in which she explains how
her recommendations to organizations typically begin with a review of
the research literature. Thus, it is easy for students to imagine them-
selves as consultants making a recommendation to a client along these
lines: “Given Computech’s situation, research suggests that the most
successful strategy is likely to be . . .”

COMMON PROBLEMS IN LITERATURE REVIEWS

Of course, for literature reviews to achieve these goals, they must be
based on a thorough search and provide a clear, focused synthesis of
the literature. Yet a number of common problems may lead literature
reviews to fail.

Although our focus is primarily on the writing of literature reviews, it
is important to acknowledge that a key problem may be that the search
is not systematic or comprehensive enough. As a result, the literature
reviewed may be too narrow, scattered, or out of date. The search may
also focus on the wrong sources, for example, relying on textbooks and
popular press articles at the expense of scholarly sources.

Regarding problems in the writing itself, first, reviews often lack a
clear sense of purpose. Students sometimes mistakenly assume that the
goal of the literature review is simply to cite or describe as many sources

174 BUSINESS COMMUNICATION QUARTERLY / June 2006

BCQ287960.qxd 4/12/2006 6:51 PM Page 174

as possible relevant to the topic. One result may be that they assume the
goal is to string together a series of quotes from the literature reviewed.
Another result may be what we call the “he said/she said” problem; that
is, the writer tells us what each source says but does not convey the rela-
tionships among the sources. It is the writer’s job to synthesize, or make
sense of, the literature. Simply describing or quoting the literature may
be adequate, but in doing so the writer loses the argument as well as
his or her own voice. Instead, the writer should have a clear objective,
usually that of synthesizing the literature that responds to a specific
research question or objective. Similarly, he or she should have a clear
audience in mind. A clear audience and objective can help avoid some
of the other problems typically associated with a review.

Second, writers may assume too much reader familiarity with litera-
ture—for example, by not defining jargon or key terms or by not
explaining key assumptions. A related problem is that of failing to dis-
tinguish fact from opinion. Some sources reviewed will be based on
empirical research, and others will be opinion pieces or conceptual arti-
cles. However, phrases like “Smith said” or “Smith concluded that” do not
clearly indicate the basis of the conclusions or arguments reached in the
source cited. At other times, the writer may use phrases that suggest an
empirical basis for the source’s conclusions (e.g., “Smith found that…”).
Such phrasing is appropriate if that is the case, but not if the source is
simply someone’s opinion.

Third, a problem that may occur is that the writer may assert gener-
alizations that are not sufficiently supported by the literature cited. As
a result, the reader is not convinced of the writer’s conclusions.

Finally, poor organization or structure is a final writing problem
that detracts from the effectiveness of literature reviews. Poor struc-
ture can make the argument or logic of the synthesis difficult for the
reader to comprehend.

CHARACTERISTICS OF WELL-WRITTEN
LITERATURE REVIEWS

To a large extent, the features that characterize effective writing in gen-
eral also characterize effective literature reviews. Therefore, we will
focus on those aspects of writing that are unique to literature reviews or
are particularly problematic.

Literature reviews should include the following main components
(UC–Santa Cruz, 2003):

Zorn, Campbell / IMPROVING LITERATURE REVIEWS 175

BCQ287960.qxd 4/12/2006 6:51 PM Page 175

1. An introduction that provides an overview of the focus and objectives
of the review, along with a thesis statement

2. A set of themes that categorize and make sense of the sources reviewed
and develop the thesis (e.g., sources that support a particular position,
those opposed, and those offering alternative views)

3. Explanation and evaluation of conclusions reached by key sources, and
explanation of how they converge and diverge from the conclusions
reached by other sources

4. Conclusions, reasonable speculations, and gaps that emerge after con-
sidering the sources as a whole

The introduction should articulate a clear and appropriate focus
for the literature review. Like any good research project, a literature
review should be guided by a specific objective or, better yet, a ques-
tion to be answered. This will not only guide the search strategy for
the literature review, but it should also guide the writing. Most parts
of the written literature review—the introduction, the major headings,
and the conclusion—can often be derived from this question. For
example, imagine that the overall question driving an applied research
project is, “How do employees perceive that communication about the
restructuring at Computech has influenced morale?” This can be easily
converted into an appropriate question for the literature review such
as, “How does communication about restructuring influence morale?”
A guiding research question encourages development of a thesis state-
ment that responds to the question. Given the example question above,
the thesis statement for the literature review might be something like,
“The literature suggests that communication about restructuring
appears to influence morale in three primary ways.”

Students may derive the set of themes from the key elements of the
research question or from the thesis statement. The themes may then
serve as the major headings for the body of the literature review. To con-
tinue with the example just mentioned, the major themes might be the
various means by which communication about restructuring affects
morale, or they might be (a) the ways organizations typically communi-
cate about restructuring (or major changes generally), (b) the demon-
strated effects of communication on morale, and (c) the features of
communication known to affect morale.

Within the discussion of major themes, the writer should focus on
explaining and evaluating conclusions reached by key sources. It is
critical that in doing so, the writer integrate and synthesize rather
than just summarize—and this applies to individual paragraphs as
well as the overall literature review. So the writer should explain the

176 BUSINESS COMMUNICATION QUARTERLY / June 2006

BCQ287960.qxd 4/12/2006 6:51 PM Page 176

Zorn, Campbell / IMPROVING LITERATURE REVIEWS 177

common or divergent conclusions reached by two or more sources
and any issues of concern in evaluating their claims—for example,
controversial issues or questionable methods. Consider this example
from a recent published article:

Empirical studies of service encounters, relationships, and pseudore-
lationships have found that customers are more satisfied with their
experience in service relationships than service encounters or
pseudorelationships [three sources cited]. Specifically, . . . (Koermer,
2005, p. 249)

In one sentence, the author synthesized the main findings from three
studies, and then in subsequent sentences, he went on to explain the
points of convergence and divergence. This is much more effective
than devoting each paragraph to explaining the findings from one
study, then leaving the reader to do his or her own synthesis—which,
unfortunately, is what we see in too many literature reviews.

It is also important that the explanations are accurate and clear in
describing research reviewed. Writers need to keep in mind that the
reader usually has not read the original reports; therefore, they need
to provide adequate information so the reader can have confidence
in the conclusions reached. In some cases—especially when the con-
clusion reached is critical to the overall thesis—this may require pro-
viding a summary of the evidence presented in the original source,
for example, “Based on a survey of 213 human resource managers in
large U.S. companies, Smith found that a slight majority had changed
their policies in the past two years.” Quotes should be used sparingly,
but brief excerpts add credibility and clarity when they make a point
particularly well.

Synthesizing the literature amounts to constructing an argument
about the conclusions reached, questions or concerns about these
conclusions, and the gaps that remain. Thus, the features of good
argumentative writing should be prominent. Particularly important is
clear paragraph structure. This includes topic sentences that make
claims and also indicate the logical flow of the argument, for
example, through connecting phrases such as “similarly” or “in addi-
tion” or “in contrast.” The remaining sentences in the paragraph
should clarify, elaborate, and substantiate the topic sentence.

The end result of the literature review should be a coherent set of
answers to the question. That does not mean that the review should
reach stronger conclusions than are warranted by the research
reviewed. But it does mean that in concluding the review, the writer

BCQ287960.qxd 4/12/2006 6:51 PM Page 177

178 BUSINESS COMMUNICATION QUARTERLY / June 2006

should summarize the answers to the research question as clearly as
the literature allows. The writer can also speculate from the litera-
ture, as long as the speculations are clearly labeled as such, and can
(and should) identify important gaps in knowledge. Thus, the writer
should identify the important questions that remain to be answered
in future research. The gaps identified may provide the justification
for a larger study of which the literature review is a part.

Finally, the writer should pay careful attention to the tone of his or
her writing. The tone should be respectful of the studies reviewed, not
condescending or dismissive, which novice writers sometimes are
guilty of. Additionally, it is important that the writer’s voice remain
foregrounded and not lost behind a series of quotes. Even though the
literature review summarizes the work of others, the thesis presented
in the literature review, as well as the support for it, is that of the writer.

AN IN-CLASS LITERATURE REVIEW EXERCISE

Presenting explanations such as those provided so far in this article is
helpful, but students also need the experience of writing literature
reviews and getting feedback on them to do them well and improve
their skill. Unfortunately, doing a substantial literature review requires
many hours of work, so it is difficult to develop the skills needed in the
classroom. However, we suggest the following mini–literature review
exercise to develop some of the writing skills needed. The exercise
involves giving students several abstracts of articles that are all on the
same topic (Krone, 1992; Waldron, 1991; Waldron & Hunt, 1992;
Waldron, Hunt, & Dsilva, 1993). Appendix A contains a set of four
abstracts from articles focusing on upward influence. Any set of articles
on a common theme would do for the exercise. However, these four
have a similar topical focus and research approach, so that students can
easily see how the content of one relates to the others. Therefore, they
can focus their energy on the writing task rather than trying to figure
out how the articles relate to each other.

Typically, before students do the exercise, we present a brief lecture
covering the ideas discussed above. Then we provide the students with
the following instructions:

In this handout are the abstracts of four research articles, all on a simi-
lar set of topics. Your goal is to use the principles just discussed to write
a brief literature review—about 2-4 paragraphs. In particular, focus on

BCQ287960.qxd 4/12/2006 6:51 PM Page 178

Zorn, Campbell / IMPROVING LITERATURE REVIEWS 179

incorporating the key elements outlined in the lecture and synthesizing
the findings of the four articles. Assume that your audience is the man-
ager of corporate training, who has asked you to find out what the
research says about patterns of upward communication.

Usually, students work individually. Sometimes, however, we allow
them to work in pairs, especially if it is not an advanced class. And if there
is time, we ask several of them to write their reviews on transparencies to
share with the class. After discussing the best features of each, we give
students a handout that has two sample solutions—one that is generally
well written but not very well synthesized and one that is much better syn-
thesized (see Appendix B). We use the “Comments” feature on Microsoft
Word to point to particular elements of the two answers that relate to the
problems identified and the characteristics of good literature reviews dis-
cussed in the minilecture. If time permits, we ask students to look back
at their initial attempts and compare them to the model answer. They are
encouraged to look for opportunities where they might incorporate the
lessons learned from the exercise.

Although the experience of synthesizing four abstracts is far less
complex than that of a typical literature review, the exercise enables the
instructor to focus on some of the most challenging writing problems.
It can be used as a stand-alone activity to develop students’ skills in
gathering, synthesizing, and reporting information in well-defined sce-
narios, to develop skills important to business communication courses,
or as a preliminary step in proposal or report writing. In either case, the
exercise brings literature reviews into focus and provides students with
not only a better understanding of their purpose and usefulness but
also guidance on how to write them effectively. The features presented
in the model answer also make useful points of reference for the
instructor when the students’ own literature reviews are later evaluated.

APPENDIX A
Four Abstracts of Research Articles
on Upward Influence

Waldron, V. R. (1991). Achieving communication goals in superior-subordinate rela-
tionships: The multi-functionality of upward maintenance tactics. Communication
Monographs, 58(3), 289-306.

Maintenance of the supervisory relationship is arguably the most important
of the communication objectives pursued by subordinates. Maintenance
communication creates the context in which other goal-oriented messages
are constructed by the subordinate and evaluated by the supervisor. In this

BCQ287960.qxd 4/12/2006 6:51 PM Page 179

180 BUSINESS COMMUNICATION QUARTERLY / June 2006

study, an inductive procedure was used to identify upward maintenance tac-
tics reportedly used by subordinates. Subsequent factor analysis using a sam-
ple of 518 working adults yielded four maintenance tactic types; Personal,
Contractual, Regulative, and Direct. Supervisory relationship quality influ-
enced reported tactic use: Subordinates participating in leadership
exchanges (Dansereau, Graen, & Haga, 1975) scored higher on the Personal,
Contractual, and Directness factors. Subordinates in supervisory exchanges
scored higher on the Regulative factor. Results are interpreted as evidence
that in high quality supervisory relationships, upward maintenance tactics
may be multi-functional, simultaneously preserving relational stability and
the capacity for negotiation and change. The results both confirm and
extend previous research on leader-member exchange by specifying how
subordinate communication contributes to exchange quality.

Waldron, V., Hunt, M. D., & Dsilva, M. (1993). Towards a threat management model of
upward communication: A study of influence and maintenance tactics in the leader-
member dyad. Communication Studies, 44(3-4), 254-272.

This paper presents a descriptive model of factors affecting subordinates’ use
of upward influence tactics. The model is based on the notion that enduring
patterns of relationship maintenance tactics used by subordinates both rein-
force and gradually alter perceptions of leader-member exchange quality.
These relational perceptions are primary considerations when subordinates
assess threats and subsequently make tactic choices during influence
episodes (and other potentially risky encounters). Context factors, including
influence goals, are thought to magnify or mute the threat associated with a
given episode. A study of 194 working adults explored several model compo-
nents. The data support the conclusion that upward influence tactic choice
is most influenced by the quality of the relationship between a leader and
his/her subordinates.

Krone, K. J. (1992). A comparison of organizational, structural, and relationship effects
on subordinates’ upward influence choices. Communication Quarterly, 40(1), 1-15.

This research examined the extent to which organizational membership, cen-
tralization of authority and subordinates’ perceptions of supervisory relation-
ship quality affect how frequently they report using different types of tactics in
their upward influence attempts. Participants from five different organizations
were surveyed. A typology of upward influence tactics was created based on the
extent to which (1) the means employed to attempt influence are open or
closed, and (2) the desired outcomes are openly expressed or left undisclosed.
The resulting dependent variable consisted of three types of tactics: open
upward influence, strategic upward influence, and political upward influence.
MANOVA results indicated that while organizational membership, centraliza-
tion of authority and leader-member exchange all significantly affect upward
influence tactic choices, organizational membership explains more variance
than do the other two independent variables.

BCQ287960.qxd 4/12/2006 6:51 PM Page 180

Zorn, Campbell / IMPROVING LITERATURE REVIEWS 181

Waldron, V. R., & Hunt, M. D. (1992). Hierarchical level, length, and quality of super-
visory relationship as predictors of subordinates’ use of maintenance tactics.
Communication Reports, 5(2), 82-89.

Maintenance of the supervisory relationship is perhaps the most important
communication objective pursued by subordinates. This study examined vari-
ations in the maintenance tactics used by 511 working adults as a function of
three relational variables that include (a) position of the relationship in the
organizational hierarchy, (b) length of the relationship, and (c) relationship
quality. Results indicated that subordinates who have hierarchical position
power reported more Direct maintenance tactic use than did lowest level sub-
ordinates. Length of the relationship had no effect on maintenance tactic
choice. Subordinates in high quality relationships reported more extensive
use of Personal and Contractual tactics. Regulative tactics were used by sub-
ordinates in lower quality relationships.

Appendix B

Literature Review Exercise: Sample Syntheses

(Version A: A pretty good descriptive summary, but not really synthesized! Too little attempt to

integrate findings)

Upward Communication

Waldron (1991) surveyed 518 working adults; he identified four types of tactics used by

employees to maintain their relationships with supervisors: “personal, contractual, regulative, and

direct” (p. xx). The quality of supervisor-subordinate relationships influenced the type of tactic

most likely to be used, with those involved in leadership exchanges using multiple tactic types

and those involved in supervisory exchanges primarily using regulative tactics. Similarly,

Waldron and Hunt (1992) studied the upward maintenance tactics of 511 working adults; they

found that subordinates in relatively high power positions were most likely to use direct

maintenance tactics. Also, they found that employees in high quality supervisor-subordinate

relationships used personal and contractual tactics and those in lower quality relationships used

regulative tactics.

Krone (1992) studied the influence tactics used by members of five organizations. She

found that the biggest predictor of tactic choice was organizational membership; that is, the

organization to which one belonged influenced the choice of tactic significantly. Two other

factors that affected influence tactic choice were the degree to which they participated in

decisions and the quality of their relationships with supervisors. Waldron, Hunt, & Dsilva’s

(1993) study of 194 working adults found that employees’ perceptions of their relationships with

Comment: Notice that no

overview or purpose statement.

The implied purpose seems to be

to describe findings in the

literature.

Comment: The writer has

assumed too much reader

familiarity with the literature.

These terms should be defined.

Comment: Here’s the “He

said/She said problem. Krone’s

work is described without any link

to the preceding

paragraph.

supervisors are the major factor that determines their choice of upward influence tactics. Other

factors, such as the employees’ influence goals, also make a difference.

Comment: Note that there’s no

conclusion to provide a sense of

structure or synthesis.

BCQ287960.qxd 4/12/2006 6:51 PM Page 181

182 BUSINESS COMMUNICATION QUARTERLY / June 2006

(Version B: Much better! Synthesized to make sense of the literature! Note that “components” in

the comments refer to the main components of literature reviews listed in the section

“Characteristics of Well Written Literature Reviews”. )

Upward Communication

Research on upward communication in organizations has focused on maintenance tactics

and influence tactics used, and what factors influence employees to choose particular tactics.

Maintenance tactics are those tactics used by employees to maintain positive relationships with

their supervisors. Influence tactics are those used to influence or persuade supervisors. While a

number of factors have been investigated, the one that stands out as having the greatest impact on

employees’ upward communication tactics is the relationship they have with supervisors.

Two studies investigated the maintenance tactics used by subordinates (Waldron , 1991;

Waldron & Hunt, 1992). Both involved surveys of more than 500 working adults. In the first

study, Waldron (1991) identified four types of tactics: “personal, contractual, regulative, and

direct” (p. xx). Both studies found that the quality of supervisor-subordinate relationships

influenced the type of tactic most likely to be used. Those involved in high quality relationships

used multiple tactic types, especially personal and contractual tactics, whereas those involved in

lower quality relationships primarily used only regulative tactics. Additionally, Waldron and

Hunt (1992) found that subordinates in relatively high power positions were most likely to use

direct maintenance tactics.

Other research has investigated why employees choose particular influence tactics with

supervisors. Krone (1992), in her study of employees at five organizations, found that the major

influence on the choice of tactics subordinates made was organizational membership. That is,

Comment: Here’s the topic

sentence for the introductory

paragraph (Component #1), which

also provides an overview of the

topic of the review.

Comment: The 2
nd

and 3
rd

sentences in the paragraph develop

the topic sentence, in this case by

defining key terms. These terms

also represent major themes

identified in the sources reviewed

(Component #2).

Comment: The last sentence in

the introductory paragraph

presents the thesis statement for

the review (Component #1).

Comment: The topic sentence

announces the 1st

theme

(Component #2). The theme is
developed further in the following

sentences.

Comment: Conclusions reached

by key sources for the 1
st
theme are

presented (Component #3). Note

how two studies with important

similarities are discussed together.

Note also how we get enough

information to know what sort of

data the findings are based on.

Comment: The rest of the

paragraph explains the conclusions

(Component #3).

Comment: The topic sentence

announces the 2
nd

theme

(Component #2). Note, again, that

it states a claim integrating the two

studies described in the paragraph.

Also, the phrase “Other research”

signals a transition from—and

connection to—the previous

paragraph.

apparently organizational culture influenced members to prefer particular ways of influencing

supervisors. On the other hand, Waldron, Hunt, and Dsilva’s (1993) study of 194 working adults

found that employees’ perceptions of their relationships with supervisors are the major factor that

determines their choice of upward influence tactics. Krone, too, found this factor to be

influential, but not as influential as organizational membership. Two other factors found to

determine the choice of upward influence tactics were degree to which employees participated in

decisions (Krone, 1992) and employees’ influence goals (Waldron et al., 1992).

From this body of research, it seems clear that an employee’s relationship with his or her

supervisor matters quite a bit in the kinds of communication used with that supervisor. While this

shouldn’t be surprising, it does emphasize how important developing solid supervisor-

subordinate relationships can be. Additionally, Krone’s (1992) research suggests that more

research should be done to investigate the influence of organizational culture on upward

communication.

Comment: The phrase “On the

other hand” signals a divergence

from the conclusion reached by

Krone (Component #3).

Comment: This sentence notes a

point of convergence as well as

divergence (Component #3)

Comment: The topic sentence

sums up conclusions that have

been clearly established

(Component #4). Note how it

relates back to the thesis statement.

Comment: The rest of the

paragraph discusses the

implications of the above

conclusions (Component #4).

BCQ287960.qxd 4/12/2006 6:51 PM Page 182

Zorn, Campbell / IMPROVING LITERATURE REVIEWS 183

REFERENCES

Koermer, C. D. (2005). Service provider type as a predictor of the relationship between
sociality and customer satisfaction. Journal of Business Communication, 42, 247-264.

Krone, K. J. (1992). A comparison of organizational, structural, and relationship effects
on subordinates’ upward influence choices. Communication Quarterly, 40, 1-15.

McGuire, P. J. (1981). The on-line literature search in business writing class. ABCA
Bulletin, 44(2), 33-37.

Nienhaus, B. (2004). Helping students improve citation performance. Business
Communication Quarterly, 67, 337-348.

Parker, K. P., Bartucci, M. R., Cook, E. O., Frauman, A. C., Hoffart, N., & Welch, J. L.
(1998). The review of the literature: “Writing the right stuff.” ANNA Journal, 25, 545-
549.

Rowley, J., & Slack, F. (2004). Conducting a literature review. Management Research News,
27(6), 31-39.

Spears, M. A. (1983). One good way to teach library research to business writing
students. ABCA Bulletin, 46(4), 32-33.

Suchan, J., & Snow, C. (1981). Library research for business writing students: A model.
ABCA Bulletin, 44(2), 33-37.

UC-Santa Cruz, U. L. (2003). How to write a literature review [Web page]. University
Library, USC-Santa Cruz. Retrieved December 22, 2004, from http://library.ucsc
.edu/ref/howto/literaturereview.html

Waldron, V. R. (1991). Achieving communication goals in superior-subordinate rela-
tionships: The multi-functionality of upward maintenance tactics. Communication
Monographs, 58, 289-306.

Waldron, V. R., & Hunt, M. D. (1992). Hierarchical level, length, and quality of super-
visory relationship as predictors of subordinates’ use of maintenance tactics.
Communication Reports, 5, 82-89.

Waldron, V., Hunt, M. D., & Dsilva, M. (1993). Towards a threat management model of
upward communication: A study of influence and maintenance tactics in the
leader-member dyad. Communication Studies, 44, 254-272.

Address correspondence to Ted Zorn, Department of Management Communication, University
of Waikato, Private Bag 3105, Hamilton, New Zealand 2001; email: tzorn@mngt.waikato
.ac.nz.

BCQ287960.qxd 4/12/2006 6:51 PM Page 183