10Min Research Methodology - 24 - Write Literature Review with No/Little Empirical Research

When literature is scarce—or entirely missing—researchers still need a defensible way to write a literature review that links concepts. The core move is to stop treating “no prior studies” as a dead end and instead build the relationship from concept definitions, key characteristics, and theory that can logically connect the variables. That approach matters because a literature review isn’t only a summary of past findings; it’s also the groundwork for explaining why one concept should affect another.

The process starts before any searching: researchers must fully understand the concepts involved. First, they clarify what X and Y mean by working from their conceptualizations and definitions. With those definitions in hand, the next step is to identify the key characteristics of each concept. Practically, that means extracting keywords from the definitions and using those terms to sharpen what counts as an essential feature of X and what counts as an essential feature of Y. This turns vague constructs into observable components that can be connected.

Once the characteristics are identified, the literature review can move toward explanation. If there is no prior research testing the relationship between X and Y, the recommended first step is to search for a theory that can justify how the relationship could work. Researchers look at existing studies involving each variable separately—then use tools like Google Scholar to find theories associated with each concept. The theory then “materializes” the relationship in writing by providing a mechanism: it offers a plausible pathway from X to Y.

A concrete example uses servant leadership (X) and humility (Y). After defining servant leadership and extracting its traits—such as building relationships, focusing on the growth of followers, and being humble, honest, and ethical—the review also clarifies humility traits, such as being down to earth, trustworthy, and grounded. If no study directly links servant leadership to humility, the search for theory may still uncover social learning theory. Under that framework, employees can learn behaviors from leaders; a humble leader can cultivate humility in employees. That theoretical mechanism becomes the justification for the proposed relationship.

If theory still doesn’t connect the concepts, the method shifts from linking whole constructs to linking components. One fallback is to link characteristics of X to the dependent concept (Y) rather than linking X to Y directly. Another option is to link characteristics of X to characteristics of Y—pairing specific traits (e.g., servant leadership behaviors) with specific humility features. Importantly, these steps aren’t mutually exclusive; researchers can use both approaches to strengthen the logic of the proposed relationship.

In short, scarce empirical literature doesn’t prevent a literature review. By grounding the work in definitions, extracting key characteristics, and using theory—or, when necessary, characteristic-to-characteristic linkage—researchers can still build a credible rationale for why X should influence Y.