A critique of convergent and divergent theories in development studies, entrepreneurship, management and strategy (DEMS): a thematic review and research agenda
Lukman Raimi & Nurudeen Babatunde Bamiro
What the paper says
Purpose This study critiques the development studies, entrepreneurship, management and strategy (DEMS) theories by examining how they converge and diverge in their conceptual frameworks and applications based on previous studies to propose a comprehensive research agenda for future studies. Design/methodology/approach The thematic review with a seven-step approach is adopted to provide an explicit method for critically reviewing existing literature focusing on the four multidisciplinary areas: development studies, entrepreneurship, management and strategy. In the end, five findings emerged from the 34 critiqued theories. Findings The study identifies five key findings from analyzing 34 DEMS theories. First, DEMS theories both converge and diverge in their frameworks, particularly in development studies focused on economic growth. Second, integrating these theories offers insights but poses challenges, especially in reconciling differing perspectives. Third, recognizing these patterns is vital for shaping future research and promoting interdisciplinary studies. Fourth, contextual factors such as socioeconomic conditions and technological advances significantly influence these theories. Finally, emerging changes in socioeconomic, technological, legal and environmental factors drive theory integration and offer strategic solutions to current challenges. Originality/value This study's originality lies in its critical review of DEMS theories, analyzing their convergence and divergence across development, entrepreneurship, management, and strategy. By employing a seven-step thematic review, it highlights the intersections between these theories, identifies research gaps and proposes a comprehensive interdisciplinary research agenda. The study also examines the influence of socioeconomic, technological and environmental changes on theory integration, offering strategic insights for addressing modern challenges.
Evidence weight
Balanced mode · F 0.40 / M 0.15 / V 0.05 / R 0.40
| F · citation impact | 0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20 |
| M · momentum | 0.50 × 0.15 = 0.07 |
| V · venue signal | 0.50 × 0.05 = 0.03 |
| R · text relevance † | 0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20 |
† Text relevance is estimated at 0.50 on the detail page — for your query’s actual relevance score, open this paper from a search result.