Dear Colleagues,
Jane Webster and Richard T. Watson (2022) wrote a particularly
useful article on writing a literature review last year.
While they focus on one specific design field, information science,
their work applies to many other areas of design. The problems
they describe in the need for literature review work and the failure
to meet that need affect most of our fields.
This article will be useful to any attempting a literature review.
This includes scholars reviewing the literature for an article or
conference presentation as well as doctoral candidates writing a
thesis.
If you wish a copy of this article in .pdf form, please send me
a note with the words,
Literature Review
in the subject header.
Best regards,
Ken Friedman
Reference
Webster, Jane, and Richard T. Watson. 2002. "Analyzing the Past to
Prepare for the Future: Writing a Literature Review." Management
Information Science Quarterly Vol. 26 No. 2, (June), xiii-xxiii.
Excerpt:
A review of prior, relevant literature is an essential feature of any
academic project. An effective review creates a firm foundation for
advancing knowledge. It facilitates theory development, closes areas
where a plethora of research exists, and uncovers areas where
research is needed. In the information systems (IS) field, we see few
published review articles. As a result, the progress of our field is
impeded. To address this concern, the MIS Quarterly launched MISQ
Review several years ago. The clear intention was to accelerate the
accumulation of IS knowledge. A particular goal was to advance the
state of theory within the IS field. The stated purpose of MISQ
Review is to
"promote MIS research by publishing articles that conceptualize
research areas and survey and synthesize prior research. These
articles will provide important input in setting directions for
future research." [1]
The lack of theoretical progress in the IS field may be surprising.
From an empirical viewpoint, the IS field resembles other management
fields. Specifically, as fields of inquiry develop, their theories
are often placed on a hierarchy from ad hoc classification systems
(in which categories are used to summarize empirical observations),
to taxonomies (in which the relationships between the categories can
be described), to conceptual frameworks (in which propositions
summarize explanations and predictions), to theoretical systems (in
which laws are contained within axiomatic or formal theories)
(Parsons and Shils 1962). In its short history, IS research has
developed from classification systems to conceptual frame- works. In
the 1970s, it was considered pre-paradigmatic. Today, it is
approaching the level of development in empirical research of other
management fields, like organizational behavior (Webster 2001).
However, unlike other fields that have journals devoted to review
articles (e.g., the Academy of Management Review), we see few review
articles in IS -- and hence the creation of MISQ Review as a device
for accelerating development of the discipline.
One reason we see so few theoretical articles in IS relates to the
youth of the field. Another concerns the complexity of assembling a
review in an interdisciplinary field. That is, constructing a review
is a challenging process because we often need to draw on theories
from a variety of fields. Moreover, we have so few theories of our
own. Nevertheless, the literature review represents the foundation
for research in IS. As such, review articles are critical to
strengthening IS as a field of study.
[1] http://www.misq.org/misreview/announce.html
|