Systematic literature reviews: opportunities and limits in ministerial adviser research

This chapter presents the results of two systematic literature reviews examining ministerial advisers in both the Westminster and Napoleonic administrative traditions. Methodologically, we argue the systematic scoping review is the most appropriate type to map this literature, given the diversity of data collection methods used, and the relative immaturity of the field in comparative conceptualisation. The empirical part of the chapter is split into two sections. The first maps fifty years of literature between 1970-2019 and uses four study characteristics - (1) publication timeline of studied political systems; (2) publication type; (3) research type; and (4) research themes - to challenge the perception of a ‘Westminster bias’ in the literature. The second empirical section sheds light on specific processes observed in both the Westminster (cabinetisation) and the Napoleonic (decabinetisation) worlds.