Writing Literature Reviews in Church-Based Research

Abstract

Because of the knowledge explosion taking place, literature reviews in church-based research are needed more than ever. Summaries and syntheses of previous research make this knowledge available to practitioners and help researchers focus on what remains unknown. In contrast to empirical studies, literature reviews rely on previously published studies to make conclusions and advance theory. These studies may include both church-based research and more general research that is not particularly Christian. In contrast to meta-analyses which focus on synthesizing statistical information, literature reviews focus on conceptual synthesis and theory advancement. To write a literature review, authors must first choose a research problem to address. An initial review of past literature will help them focus on a narrower research question, most likely in an iterative process, to choose a specific topic. The authors must also consider the purpose of their review in light of past research and theoretical contributions that they can make to the chosen topic.

Full text

GREAT COMMISSION
RESEARCH JOURNAL
2022, Vol. 14(1) 5-18
Writing Literature Reviews in
Church-Based Research
David R. Dunaetz, Editor
Abstract
Because of the knowledge explosion taking place, literature reviews in
church-based research are needed more than ever. Summaries and syntheses
of previous research make this knowledge available to practitioners and help
researchers focus on what remains unknown. In contrast to empirical
studies, literature reviews rely on previously published studies to make
conclusions and advance theory. These studies may include both church-
based research and more general research that is not particularly Christian.
In contrast to meta-analyses which focus on synthesizing statistical
information, literature reviews focus on conceptual synthesis and theory
advancement. To write a literature review, authors must first choose a
research problem to address. An initial review of past literature will help
them focus on a narrower research question, most likely in an iterative
process, to choose a specific topic. The authors must also consider the purpose
of their review in light of past research and theoretical contributions that
they can make to the chosen topic.
-------------------------------
The knowledge explosion of the last several decades has produced
unprecedented quantities of evidence-based research, including research that
is relevant to evangelism, disciple making, and virtually all church-based
ministries (Cooper, 1988; Dunaetz, 2020a; Grant & Booth, 2009). In the social
sciences and other fields that focus on understanding humans (e.g., church-

6 Great Commission Research Journal 14(1)
based research), the explosion is especially notable because of the complexity
of human behavior (Adair & Vohra, 2003). Most empirical studies in these
fields focus on a very specific phenomenon, resulting in a broad range of
studies, each touching on a narrow aspect of how humans act in different
situations and contexts. Since the 1980s, researchers have been overloaded
with information, resulting in an increased sense of need for literature reviews
that summarize and synthesize the many streams of research in a given field
(Cooper, 1988). Literature reviews not only play an essential role in the
dissemination of research, but they also help researchers avoid unnecessary
duplication of effort and allow them to build upon the work of those who have
gone before them (Bordens & Abbott, 2011).
A literature review that summarizes and synthesizes research can provide
the reader with an easily accessible overview of the advances that have
occurred in a field, for example, Fapohunda’s (2021) review of the theological
literature on integrity and evangelism. This summary and synthesis approach
may be the most common approach taken by scholars in seminaries and
theological schools. But literature reviews can also provide a bridge between
specialized fields, such as linking research in organizational psychology and
church-based research. For example, literature reviews have been used to
summarize research on organizational justice (the perception of being fairly or
unfairly treated; Colquitt et al., 2001; Cropanzano & Ambrose, 2015) that can
be applied to Christian organizations (Dunaetz, 2010) and to church planting
(Dunaetz, 2020b). This is similar to Augustine’s use of platonic philosophy for
Christian purposes in accord with Scripture, described with the metaphor of
the Israelites plundering the Egyptians during the Exodus (Augustine, 397,
Book 2, Chapter 40). In addition, literature reviews may be undertaken in
preparation for additional research (Grant & Booth, 2009; Paré et al., 2015).
A review can identify gaps that exist in our knowledge of a topic. These gaps
can form the basis of research questions.
With the general purposes of literature reviews in mind, we can address
some of the steps involved in writing literature reviews that will be beneficial
to both researchers and practitioners.
Choosing a Topic
Before writing a literature review, researchers must begin with a topic that
they consider important. In church-based research, this topic may come from
personal experiences (e.g., Hilderbrand, 2022, in this issue), previous research
that piqued the author’s interest, theories that seem relevant to ministry, or
from real-life problems (Bordens & Abbott, 2011). Concern about
deconversions (Streib, 2021), ethics and evangelism (Fapohunda, 2021),
measuring church attendance (Smith, 1998), and the meaning of church
health (Huizing, 2012) have all led to literature reviews relevant to ministry.
But a topic should not be studied and reviewed simply because it has been

Dunaetz 7
researched previously. A good literature review, as with all solid research, will
address a research problem, some problem that does not yet have a definitive
solution and is considered important by at least some people. The research
problem should not be something trivial or a simple repeat of what has been
addressed previously. The problem should be of manageable size so that any
answers or hypotheses that emerge from the literature review can be tested
(Salkind, 2017). Yet the research problem should be important enough to
justify the effort needed to find a solution.
Once the research problem is at least tentatively identified, one or more
research questions can be formed (Bordens & Abbott, 2011; Dunaetz, 2020c;
Salkind, 2017). A research question is a question whose answer will at least
provide a partial solution to the research problem. The answer to a research
question might not solve the research problem completely, but it at least
contributes some knowledge relevant to the problem, even if it raises more
questions than it answers.
A good research question needs to be answerable (Bordens & Abbott,
2011). This often means that an answer can be developed empirically, that is,
collectible data should conceivably provide evidence for a valid answer to the
research question. Although purely philosophical research questions may be
addressed without data, most answers to church-focused research questions
are more convincing when data exists. At the broadest level, this data might be
what biblical texts say about the topic, or what theologians have said about it.
But for more practical problems, qualitative and quantitative data are likely to
provide new insights into specific church-based phenomena in contemporary
contexts. A literature review should not just cover the theological aspects of a
research question, but also the empirical studies that have been conducted.
Qualitative church-based studies tend to collect data from interviews (e.g.,
Moon, 2020) or from ethnographic observations (e.g., Ward, 2015).
Quantitative church-based studies tend to collect data from surveys (e.g.,
Bocala-Wiedemann, 2022, in this issue).
A good research question will also provide the rationale for a literature
review. It will address some need that is felt by others rather than simply be
an expression of the author’s interest or curiosity. It will be presented in such
a way as to explain why this is an important question, relevant to people’s lives
either in or outside of the Christian community. It will also be framed in such
a way as to address existing contradictions or holes in the church-based
literature (Torraco, 2005).
A literature review addressing a research question will not simply be a
summary of previous research. Rather, it will lead to something new, such as
a hypothesis that can be tested, a theory that integrates the previous research,
or a proposal for additional research to address what the existing literature
cannot address. However, we often do not begin research with a literature
review. We tend to start with a research question, and based on our

8 Great Commission Research Journal 14(1)
experience, we come up with a hypothesis. Then we conduct a literature review
based on the variables or phenomena found in our hypothesis. We tend to
think that this will be a linear process (Dunaetz, 2020c):
Research Question Hypothesis or Theory Literature Review
However, this is not a linear process. Once we examine the literature, we
often discover something that will modify the research question or the
hypothesis, perhaps several times. Developing a research question,
hypothesis, and literature is often an iterative process, which can be better
represented as:
Hypothesis or Theory
Research Question
Literature Review
This nonlinear process can be frustrating, often leading to major revisions
in both our thinking and our manuscript. However, it is a necessary process to
fully integrate the literature into our thinking and to produce a valuable
literature review that can provide useful information (Salkind, 2017).
Writing the Literature Review
The Structure Depends on the Purpose
The purpose of the literature review will greatly influence both the structure
of the review and the choice of literature to include (Bem, 1995). For example,
if the author is trying to summarize competing models or theories (e.g.,
missional communities, Urton, 2022, in this issue) to make a conclusion about
the best or most relevant in a given situation or to propose a better one, the
literature review will be structured around the various models or theories.
If the author’s goal is to promote a specific or novel view (e.g., Davison,
2022, in this issue), the author might begin with a description of the
conventional view and why it is widely accepted. The author may then explore
studies that either support or do not support the conventional view. The
author may then synthesize this information, making either an improvement
to the conventional view or presenting a new, more comprehensive view.
If the purpose of a review is to lead up to a testable hypothesis, then the
review may be structured around the two or more variables invoked in the
hypothesis. For each variable, the various definitions that are found in the
literature, the demonstrated antecedents of that variable, and the
demonstrated consequences of that variable should be reviewed. The
conclusion of the review should logically lead to the hypothesis to be tested.
For example, if an initial review of the relevant literature leads to the

Dunaetz 9
hypothesis, “The greater the cultural homogeneity, the faster a newly planted
church will grow, especially when the age of the members is relatively low,”
the three variables to include in the review would be cultural homogeneity,
church growth, and the age of church members.
To structure the review so that it logically leads to the hypothesis to be
tested, the reviewer can begin (after an appropriate introduction presenting
the research problem or question) with an in-depth discussion of cultural
homogeneity (and its opposite, cultural diversity). This would include discussing
the various definitions and measures of cultural diversity, specifying the
definition and operationalization (a way it can be measured) chosen for this
study. The review would also include the research that has uncovered
antecedents (e.g., causes) of cultural homogeneity or diversity and the research
that has uncovered consequences (e.g., results) of cultural homogeneity or
diversity. The literature review should not be limited to the research done on
cultural homogeneity in the church but should cover the whole range of
literature that may be relevant. After reviewing cultural diversity, the author
should include similarly structured sections on church growth and the age of
church members. All three concepts should be logically tied together in the
conclusion, resulting in a hypothesis that can be tested empirically.
The logic of a literature review for such a study can be summarized
roughly in broad terms as “There’s a problem with A. It appears to be related to
B and C. Here’s what we know about A (its definition, antecedents, and
consequences). Here’s what we know about B (its definition, antecedents, and
consequences). Here’s what we know about C (its definition, antecedents, and
consequences). Putting this all together, we can propose that A, B, and C are
related in such-and-such a way. To remove any doubt, we will collect data to see
if it fits this proposal.”
Choosing the Appropriate Sources
When writing a literature review, it is important to find all the relevant
literature, sort through it, reject the low-quality material, and focus on what is
left (Grant & Booth, 2009). When describing research-relevant literature, it is
useful to classify each work as a primary, secondary, or tertiary source
(Salkind, 2017).
Primary sources are original, empirical studies that collect data to test a
hypothesis, form a theory, or describe a phenomenon. Most primary research
is reported in peer-reviewed journals (e.g., Great Commission Research
Journal, Christian Education Journal, Missiology: An International Review,
or Psychology of Religion and Spirituality) and has sections introducing the
problem examined, a literature review, hypotheses or research questions, a
description of the methods used to collect the data, the results of an analysis
of the data, a discussion of the meaning and implications of the results, and a
list of references used in the study. Some edited books also contain primary

10 Great Commission Research Journal 14(1)
sources. Books edited by academics (e.g., Ireland & Raven, 2020; Wuthnow,
1994) with chapters written by different specialists also may report primary
research, although other chapters would be considered secondary sources.
Secondary sources are compilations and summaries of primary research.
These may take the form of a book written by a researcher (e.g., McGavran &
Wagner, 1990; Twenge, 2017b), literature reviews (such as those mentioned
previously), meta-analyses (statistical summaries of quantitative studies, e.g.,
Donahue, 1985; Mahoney et al., 2021), handbooks (collections of review articles
written by scholars on a specific topic, e.g., Davis, 2010; Hunt, 2019), and
sometimes review articles written by experts in serious magazines such The
Atlantic and Harvard Business Review (e.g., Maccoby, 2000; Twenge, 2017a).
All other sources are tertiary sources. These include popular books based
on the author’s experience or opinion, encyclopedias, textbooks, newspapers,
Wikipedia, popular magazines such as Christianity Today or Psychology
Today, and most web pages. Tertiary (or general) sources are useful for getting
an overview of the topic or for demonstrating the reality and importance of a
problem, but they are not considered credible scholarly resources and should
generally not be included in literature reviews. Rather, literature reviews
should focus on primary and secondary sources.
It is essential to focus on high-quality sources. The internet has made it
easier to access high-quality research easily and freely through sites like
ResearchGate.net, Academia.edu, and Scholar.Google.com. However, it has
also made it easier to disseminate low-quality research as well. High-quality
sources of research are generally found in peer-reviewed journals with editors
and reviewers who are academic experts in their fields. An easy, but not
sufficient, way to identify peer-reviewed scholarship is to look for an abstract
at the beginning of the article. Most peer-reviewed articles begin with an
abstract that can help the reader determine if the rest of the article is worth
reading. An abstract generally contains a summary of the article, including a
description of the sample used in the study, the research methods used to
conduct the research, and a summary of the results (i.e., it is not a teaser to
motivate you to read more). The website of the journal publisher should
provide information about the editorial board and the peer-review process
used to select papers to publish.
The researcher should try to use the highest quality research when
preparing a literature review. Some journals, usually among the oldest in their
field, are more selective in what they publish than other journals. Authors
often submit their work to one of these more prestigious journals first and
then, if their work is rejected at their first choice, resubmit to less prestigious
journals until it is accepted somewhere. The prestige of a journal is mainly
determined by its impact factor, the average number of times per year articles
from that journal are cited by other journals (see mjl.clarivate.com for one
measure of the impact factor of thousands of journals). The general

Dunaetz 11
importance of a specific article is measured by the number of times it has been
cited by other scholarly works; Google scholar (scholar.google.com) provides
an easily accessible approximation of these citations for each article, as well as
a searchable database of journal rankings based on what Google calls the h5-
index (https://scholar.google.com/citations?view_op=metrics_intro).
Unfortunately, the last decade has seen an explosion of poor research
published in what has come to be known as predatory journals (Beall, 2015).
Because academics must often publish or perish, a market has developed for
publishing low-quality journals. Academics are spammed daily with
invitations to publish in supposedly peer-reviewed journals with publishing
fees that range from tens to thousands of dollars. These journals typically have
legitimate-sounding names but will publish most any paper for the publishing
fee. These journals are typically “open access,” that is, freely accessible on the
web immediately upon publication. There are some legitimate open access
journals because some funders require it (e.g., PLOS One, SAGE Open), but
many are predatory. Since new predatory journals appear regularly, there is
no list that identifies all of them (and some of the older lists mistakenly
included legitimate journals in them). Here are some guidelines for
determining if a journal is legitimate.
• Google the name of the journal (in quotation marks) plus “predatory.”
The journal may appear in a list of known predatory journals.
• Check out the publisher. Legitimate journals are usually published by
large, well-known publishers (e.g., Wiley, Sage, Elsevier, Blackwell,
Cambridge University Press, Emerald) or by not-for-profit professional
societies that are focused on a specific topic (e.g., Great Commission
Research Network, Evangelical Missiological Society, American
Psychological Association). Again, google the name of the journal (in
quotation marks) plus “predatory” and examine the results.
• Examine the number of citations the article has received. In Google
Scholar (scholar.google.com), find the article and the “Cited by”
number on the final line of the article description. Low-quality
articles from predatory journals are rarely cited (at least not by
scholars; students are less selective.)
Not all low-quality research is found in predatory journals. When journals are
first launched, they may have difficulty attracting high-quality submissions
and have to publish the best that they have, even if the research is not
especially credible or insightful. Unlike predatory journals, these journals may
have a legitimate peer-review system and may not charge publication fees.
They are sometimes known as “emerging sources” (Clarivate, 2022) and are
often published in developing countries where universities are growing and
trying to establish international reputations (often by adopting Western

12 Great Commission Research Journal 14(1)
“publish or perish” norms in academia). Signs of low-quality research include
poor English editing, poor typesetting, the use of weak evidence or arguments,
vague information about the research methods used, and the improper use of
statistics. When writing literature reviews, researchers need to critically
examine each source of information to be included in the review.
Types of Literature Reviews
Literature reviews can have different forms and purposes (Cooper, 1988;
Grant & Booth, 2009; Paré et al., 2015). All of them result from the authors
“locating, obtaining, reading, and evaluating the research literature” (Bordens
& Abbot, 2011, p. 66) relevant to their research question. Literature reviews are
distinct from empirical studies in that literature reviews do not seek to collect
new data concerning a specific phenomenon. Whereas empirical studies tend to
have narrow research questions, literature reviews can have broader research
questions that are addressed by integrating the results of a wide range of
empirical and theoretical studies (Baumeister & Leary, 1997). Literature reviews
are also distinct from meta-analyses (Glass, 1976; Rosenthal & DiMatteo, 2001),
which are summaries of quantitative studies with the results presented in tables
of numbers (Baumeister & Leary, 1997). Meta-analyses serve similar functions
as literature reviews and can be just as (or even more) informative than them.
Meta-analyses help sort through contradictory studies which find both
significant and insignificant relationships between variables by combining the
statistics presented in the individual articles into a composite calculation of the
strength of the relationship. The meta-analysis presents a conclusion that is
more trustworthy than the conclusions of individual studies included. Meta-
analyses can also discover moderating variables, that is, conditions under which
a relationship is especially strong or does not exist (Rosenthal, 1991; Rosenthal
& DiMatteo, 2001).
The Purpose of the Literature Review
The purpose of the literature review should be clear to the author from the
beginning because it will influence every aspect of the research process. There
are many different ways of classifying literature reviews by their purpose
(Cooper, 1988; Grant & Booth, 2009; Paré et al., 2015). Some of the most
common are described as follows.
Critical Reviews. The purpose of critical reviews is to demonstrate that
the author has mastered the literature on the topics relevant to the research
question and to provide the background necessary to do additional research
(Dunaetz, 2020c; Grant & Booth, 2009). These reviews typically result in a
hypothesis or a model to be tested. This is the most common type of review
written by graduate students as they prepare their thesis or dissertation. They
are also found in the introduction to empirical studies to provide the
background necessary to understand the research and to provide justification

Dunaetz 13
for the hypothesis tested or research question addressed.
Narrative Reviews. The purpose of narrative reviews (e.g., Mermilliod,
2021) is to summarize the most important research on a topic (Baumeister &
Leary, 1997; Grant & Booth, 2009). They present what is known and what is
not known on a topic. These reviews often occur in academic journals with
“review” in the title.
Systematic Reviews. These reviews focus (e.g., Fapohunda, 2021) on a
systematic search of all the databases for knowledge on a topic (Fehrmann &
Hawkins, 2014; Fehrmann & Wagner, 2012; Grant & Booth, 2009). The
standard for the search is often set by an external authority, such as a funder
or a doctoral advisor. In principle, systematic reviews done by different
researchers will yield similar conclusions.
Integrative Reviews. Also known as theory development reviews,
integrative reviews seek to tie various strands of research together into a
coherent whole, such as a modification of an existing theory or into a new
theory, or to apply knowledge from one field to another field (Baumeister &
Leary, 1997; Torraco, 2005). Integrative reviews are typically used when
research done in secular contexts is applied to Christian contexts (e.g.,
Dunaetz, 2010) or when research done in one ministry context is reviewed and
applied to another ministry context (e.g., Urton, 2022). Integrative reviews are
especially relevant for application-focused research journals such as the Great
Commission Research Journal.
Factors to Consider When Writing a Literature Review
The form of a literature review will depend on many choices that the author must
make. The SALSA framework for literature reviews (Search, AppraisaL, Synthesis,
and Analysis; Grant & Booth, 2009) describes some of the main choices.
Search. How will the researcher find relevant articles and how much
time will be invested in finding these articles? Using the academic databases
in libraries (Atla Religion, PsychInfo, ProQuest Religion, etc.) allows for a
systematic approach to searching for literature that can be reproduced (e.g.,
Fapohunda, 2021), but it tends to be slow and the order in which the works
are presented is not always clear. Google Scholar (scholar.google.com) is much
faster. It sorts the results first by the number of keywords in the title and then
by the number of times the work has been cited. But Google Scholar can
produce different results at different times and contains more irrelevant
results. Library databases require some sort of membership or affiliation, but
Google Scholar often has direct download links to PDFs in the right column
next to each work. Google Scholar is also linkable to university libraries and
databases (via Settings) to download articles when PDFs are not available for
direct download.
AppraisaL. To what degree will the literature review appraise and
evaluate the works included? Sometimes the appraisal is done informally to

14 Great Commission Research Journal 14(1)
determine what works the researcher wants to read more thoroughly. In this
case, no appraisal of the quality of the research is presented in the published
literature review. This may be the case when a limited number of works are
being compared (e.g., Urton, 2022, in this issue). Other times, the researcher
may evaluate the methods used in each article and only report relevant
conclusions based on the high-quality studies. In other studies, the researcher
may want to provide information on the quality of all the studies examined,
both high and low to compare and contrast the high- and low-quality studies
(e.g., Stewart et al., 2010).
Synthesis. Putting the information together from various studies
examined can take on several forms. Sometimes the researcher just wants to
introduce research on a topic without trying to synthesize it. But more often,
especially in more detailed literature reviews, a more complete synthesis is
needed. The most common form of synthesis is a narrative integrating all that
is known about the phenomenon under consideration. This calls for a mastery
of the relevant research and insight into how to present it coherently. Other
times, a historical synthesis is appropriate, presenting a chronological
description of how knowledge and perception of a phenomenon have evolved
to the present state. In other cases, the synthesis can be put in tabular form,
especially if the information can be presented in a clear and logical structure
that has little need for a narrative explanation.
Analysis. In most cases, the researcher writes a literature review to lead
to new ideas, perhaps a new theory, perhaps a new application of a theory,
perhaps a research question to be addressed, perhaps a hypothesis to be
tested. To do so, the literature reviewed must be analyzed. When creating a
new theory or a new application of a theory, the analysis needs to be in-depth
and robust. When trying to describe the current state of research to determine
what is known and what is unknown to justify further research, the literature
review needs to be complete, but the analysis presented may be shorter than
in other types of literature reviews.
These are the main factors that should be taken into consideration when
writing a literature review (Grant & Booth, 2009). Other factors should also
be taken into consideration (Cooper, 1988; Paré et al., 2015), including the
audience who is likely to read the review (generalist or specialist), the scope
of the review (broad or narrow), and overall focus (theory, research methods,
or practice). All of these factors should be considered when writing a
literature view.
Practical Guidelines
To make a literature review as useful as possible to the audience who might
find it either through searching library databases or the web, following several
practical guidelines can help.

Dunaetz 15
Accessibility. Anyone with a college education should be able to read a
well-written literature review (Bem, 1995). It should not be addressed to
specialists, so specialized vocabulary needs to be explained. The specialized
vocabulary associated with different fields of church-based research is useful
among specialists (e.g., homogenous unit, catalyst, or movement), but needs
to be explained so that those who are not familiar with the technical meaning
of an expression can understand the review.
Avoiding Lists. Most humans would rather read a story than a
phonebook. A literature review should aim at telling a story, communicating a
central idea in a persuasive manner (Bem, 1995; Sternberg, 1991). Authors
should avoid mind-numbing lists and bullet points. They should argue for a
clear point of view, creating a flow that is natural and coherent, with adjacent
ideas clearly linked. They need to stay focused on the argument, avoiding
tangents. In literature reviews, it is easy to get distracted by describing
relatively unimportant research.
Clarity. Clarity and precision are primordial for literature reviews,
whereas flare and style should be secondary (Bem, 1995). Figurative and
ambiguous language should be avoided. Accuracy is more important than
using a wide vocabulary or flowery constructions. Parallel structure in
sentences and paragraphs is especially useful for this. For example, suppose I
want to communicate two ideas. The first is: When a youth pastor arrives in a
church that is under 5 years old, such a church tends to grow when the
neighborhood is growing. The second idea can be communicated either as:
1) When a new head pastor arrives in a church under 5 years old, such a
church tends not to grow even if the neighborhood is growing.
2) In growing neighborhoods, church growth does not result from the
installation of a new head pastor if the church is under 5 years old.
Standing alone, sentences 1) and 2) are about equally clear concerning the second
idea. But given the first idea, sentence 1) is much clearer because it maintains the
same structure and makes it easy to understand the contrast made. Parallel
structure makes both contrasts and comparisons easier to understand.
Write and Rewrite. Few writers put their thoughts onto paper clearly
in their first attempt. We need to write, rewrite, and rewrite some more until
the text is as clear and precise as we can make it (Bem, 1995). Once we have
gotten that far, we should give our manuscript to one or more of our most
critical, trusted colleagues (perhaps even our spouse) and ask them to critique
it. If they say something is unclear, we should believe them and continue
improving it. When we submit our literature review to a peer-reviewed
journal, the reviewers will likely find even more issues that need addressing.
This is all part of producing the highest quality research. We should embrace
it rather than fight against it.

16 Great Commission Research Journal 14(1)
Conclusion
Literature reviews are an essential tool for dealing with the explosion of
knowledge relevant to church-based research. They may be difficult and time-
consuming to write, but they can serve all those seeking to fulfill the Great
Commission by summarizing and synthesizing information that may enable
them to be more effective. May the readers of the Great Commission Research
Journal be motivated to write more literature reviews and may the literature
reviews published in the journal contribute to the advancement of the
Kingdom of God.
David R. Dunaetz, Editor
ddunaetz@apu.edu
References
Adair, J. G., & Vohra, N. (2003). The explosion of knowledge, references, and
citations: Psychology's unique response to a crisis. American
Psychologist, 58(1), 15-23.
Augustine. (397). On Christian doctrine.
Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1997). Writing narrative literature reviews.
Review of General Psychology, 1(3), 311-320.
Beall, J. (2015). Predatory journals and the breakdown of research cultures.
Information Development, 31(5), 473-476.
Bem, D. J. (1995). Writing a review article for Psychological Bulletin. Psychological
Bulletin, 118(2), 172-177.
Bocala-Wiedemann, T. J. (2022). Social media as a tool for evangelism among
youth and young adults. Great Commission Research Journal, 14(1),
19-34.
Bordens, K. S., & Abbott, B. B. (2011). Research design and methods: A process
approach (8th ed.). Mc Graw-Hill.
Clarivate. (2022). Web of science: Emerging sources citation index.
https://clarivate.com/webofsciencegroup/solutions/webofscience-esci/
Colquitt, J. A., Conlon, D. E., Wesson, M. J., Porter, C., & Ng, K. Y. (2001). Justice
at the millennium: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational
justice research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 425-445.
Cooper, H. M. (1988). Organizing knowledge syntheses: A taxonomy of literature
reviews. Knowledge in Society, 1(1), 104-126.
Cropanzano, R., & Ambrose, M. L. (2015). Organizational justice: Where we have
been and where we are going. In R. Cropanzano & M. L. Ambrose (Eds.),
The Oxford handbook of justice in the workplace (pp. 3-14). Oxford
University Press.
Davis, D. H. (2010). The Oxford handbook of church and state in the United
States. Oxford University Press.
Davison, J. (2022). The continuity mindset for Christian mission. Great
Commission Research Journal, 14(1), 51-68.
Donahue, M. J. (1985). Intrinsic and extrinsic religiousness: Review and meta-
analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48(2), 400-419.

Dunaetz 17
Dunaetz, D. R. (2010). Organizational justice: Perceptions of being fairly treated.
In D. Baker & D. Hayward (Eds.), Serving Jesus with integrity: Ethics
and accountability in mission (pp. 197-221). William Carey Library.
Dunaetz, D. R. (2020a). Church-based research: Challenges and opportunities.
Great Commission Research Journal, 12(1), 1-17.
Dunaetz, D. R. (2020b). Organizational justice in young churches: Maximizing
fair treatment of others and responding to violations. Jurnal Jaffray,
18(1), 1-19.
Dunaetz, D. R. (2020c). Research methods and survey applications: Outlines and
activities from a Christian perspective (3rd ed.). Martel Press.
Fapohunda, B. (2021). The role of personal integrity in soulwinning: A systematic
review of the theological literature. The Evangelical Review of Theology
and Politics, 9, 37-54.
Fehrmann, P., & Hawkins, M. (2014). Using rapid review methods for topics in
religion. Advances in the Study of Information and Religion, 4(2014),
Article 4.
Fehrmann, P., & Wagner, S. H. (2012). A systematic literature review model for
religion. https://oaks.kent.edu/node/261
Glass, G. V. (1976). Primary, secondary, and meta-analysis of research.
Educational Researcher, 5(10), 3-8.
Grant, M. J., & Booth, A. (2009). A typology of reviews: An analysis of 14 review
types and associated methodologies. Health Information & Libraries
Journal, 26(2), 91-108.
Hilderbrand, K. M. (2022). The sinner’s prayer: An inappropriate ritual for Thai
Christian culture and a suggested replacement. Great Commission
Research Journal, 14(1), 69-85.
Huizing, R. (2012). In search of the healthy church: A meta-ethnographic study.
Great Commission Research Journal, 4(1), 43-59.
Hunt, S. (Ed.). (2019). Handbook of megachurches. Brill.
Ireland, J., & Raven, M. (Eds.). (2020). Practicing hope: Missions in goblal crises.
William Carey Publishing.
Maccoby, M. (2000). Narcissistic leaders: The incredible pros, the inevitable cons.
Harvard Business Review, 78(1), 68-78.
Mahoney, A., Wong, S., Pomerleau, J. M., & Pargament, K. I. (2021).
Sanctification of diverse aspects of life and psychosocial functioning: A
meta-analysis of studies from 1999 to 2019. Psychology of Religion and
Spirituality, Advance online publication.
https://doi.org/https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/rel0000354
McGavran, D. A., & Wagner, C. P. (1990). Understanding Church Growth (Third
ed.). Eerdmans.
Mermilliod, E. P. (2021). A synthesis of academic research related to church-based
family ministry. Christian Education Journal, 18(3), 406-423.
Moon, W. J. (2020). Alternative financial models for churches and church plants:
When tithes and offerings are not enough. Great Commission Research
Journal, 12(1), 19-42.

18 Great Commission Research Journal 14(1)
Paré, G., Trudel, M.-C., Jaana, M., & Kitsiou, S. (2015). Synthesizing information
systems knowledge: A typology of literature reviews. Information &
Management, 52(2), 183-199.
Rosenthal, R. (1991). Meta-analytic procedures for social research. Sage.
Rosenthal, R., & DiMatteo, M. R. (2001). Meta-analysis: Recent developments in
quantitative methods for literature reviews. Annual Review of
Psychology, 52(1), 59-82.
Salkind, N. J. (2017). Exploring research (9th ed.). Pearson.
Smith, T. W. (1998). A review of church attendance measures. American
Sociological Review, 131-136.
Sternberg, R. J. (1991). Editorial. Psychological Bulletin, 109(1), 3-4.
Stewart, R., Van Rooyen, C., Dickson, K., Majoro, M., & De Wet, T. (2010). What
is the impact of microfinance on poor people?: A systematic review of
evidence from sub-saharan Africa. University of London.
Streib, H. (2021). Leaving religion: Deconversion. Current Opinion in Psychology,
40, 139-144.
Torraco, R. J. (2005). Writing integrative literature reviews: Guidelines and
examples. Human Resource Development Review, 4(3), 356-367.
Twenge, J. M. (2017a). Have smartphones destroyed a generation? The Atlantic.
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/09/has-the-
smartphone-destroyed-a-generation/534198/
Twenge, J. M. (2017b). iGen: Why today's super-connected kids are growing up
less rebellious, more tolerant, less happy--and completely unprepared for
adulthood--and what that means for the rest of us. Simon and Schuster.
Urton, M. (2022). An examination of three models of missional communities for
sharing the gospel with Muslims in the United States. Great Commission
Research Journal, 14(1), 35-49.
Ward, M. (2015). The powerpoint and the glory: An ethnography of pulpit media
and its organizational impacts. Journal of Media and Religion, 14(4),
175-195.
Wuthnow, R. (1994). "I come away stronger": How small groups are shaping
American religion. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing.