Hi Kristen, it may be helpful to list the exact operators used with your search terms so others are able to replicate your search!
Hi Julia, you may also think about reporting the number of duplicates in your final paper to help explain your final search number!
Research Question: What is the relationship between employees' psychological ownership of workspaces and their organizational commitment?
A systematic literature search was conducted to identify studies that examined the relationship between employees' psychological ownership of workspaces and their organizational commitment. The search strategy was designed to avoid publication bias and ensure comprehensive coverage of relevant work. A full-text search was conducted in each database using a Boolean search string capturing relevant variations of our core constructs, connecting terms for psychological ownership of workspaces with terms for organizational commitment using Boolean operators. The search combined the terms "psychological ownership", owner*, territorial*, "place attachment", "place identity", "place bonding", "sense of ownership", belong*, "perceived control", "workspace identification", "workplace identification", "office identification", and "feel* home", using an OR operator. This initial set of terms was then linked to workspace descriptors using an AND operator: "office design", "shared space*", "private office*", "dedicated desk*", "assigned desk*", "hot desk*", cubicle*, "social space*", "communal space*", "third space*", "collaboration zone*", lounge*, kitchen*, breakroom*, cafeteria*, "game room*", "activity space*", "well-being room*", "huddle room*", "focus room*", "project room*", "work setting*", "corporate real estate", "physical environment", and "built environment" (also linked by an OR operator). Both of these sets of terms were linked with a second AND operator to terms related to commitment: "organizational commitment", "job commitment", "affective commitment", "continuance commitment", "normative commitment", loyalty, "job satisfaction", engag*, turnover, and retention (also linked by an OR operator).
The primary literature search was conducted across prominent electronic library databases with extensive coverage in management, organizational behavior, and psychology. These included PsycINFO, ABI/Inform, ScienceDirect, ERIC, Web of Science, and Google Scholar. To mitigate publication bias and ensure comprehensive inclusion of both published and unpublished scholarly work, a search was performed for dissertations and theses through ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global. Additionally, conference proceedings and abstracts from relevant scholarly conferences were systematically reviewed, including major venues such as the Academy of Management (AOM), Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology (SIOP), European Association of Work and Organizational Psychology (EAWOP), Strategic Management Association (SMA), Western Academy of Management (WAM), Eastern Academy of Management (EAM), Midwestern Academy of Management, British AOM, African AOM, Asia AOM, European AOM, and Australian and NZ AOM.
We conducted a comprehensive literature search to identify empirical studies on workplace dehumanization and objectification. We searched four primary databases: ABI/INFORM, PsycINFO, Web of Science, and ProQuest Dissertations and Theses. To ensure inclusion of both published and unpublished work, we also searched PsyArXiv, SSRN, and the online conference programs of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology (SIOP) and the Academy of Management (AOM). We supplemented these sources with a manual search on Google Scholar, screening results sequentially and discontinuing once 100 consecutive irrelevant records were encountered. We also used metaBUS to identify additional studies using taxonomy codes relevant to workplace dehumanization and related constructs. Across all sources, we searched for the following Boolean expression in the full text: (“dehumaniz*” OR “objectif*”) AND (“organiz*” OR “work*” OR “employe*” OR “job*”). This search strategy was designed to capture a broad and inclusive set of empirical studies examining how individuals are dehumanized or objectified in organizational or work contexts. I confined the search with keywords related to work or organization because there is a huge literature on dehumanization and objectification in the broader psychology literature.
Listing the AND/OR operators would really help see what kind of search was conducted.
Hi Dana! It says that Sam posted this, but this was me 😉 It's not complete yet, and these search terms were taken from a previous review on proactivity, which I understand should be indicated as such. Thanks!
Hi Dana! Please ignore my previous post, I only mentioned that it's posted under Sam's name (don't know how that happened). Please find my description below. It's not complete, and these search terms were taken from a previous literature review on proactive behavior, which I should probably indicate as such (i.e., specify which review study it was taken from). I still wonder if I should add the outcomes I'd be most interested in, such as specific well-being measures, like burnout and work engagement. Thank you!
As a first step in our literature search, we did a full-text search in three main databases (i.e., PsycINFO, Web of Science, ABI/Inform), using the following search terms: "self-initiative" or "job crafting" or "work proactivity" or "proactive personality" or "personal initiative" or "proactive work behavior" or "proactive work behaviour” or "work proactivity" or "proactive behavior" or "proactive behaviour" or "proactivity" or "career proactivity" or "proactive career" or "taking charge" or "proactive feedback seeking" or “proactive career" or “proactive person-environment fit" or "proactive coping" or “voice” or “proactive information seeking” and “training” or “intervention” or “quasi-experiment”. Second, we searched the Proquest Dissertation and Theses database to attain a more balanced distribution of significant and nonsignificant findings, thereby limiting the effects of publication bias (Kepes et al., 2012). Finally, as a supplementary step, we did a search in Google scholar. We screened the search findings until 100 search results in a row were no longer relevant.