Literature Review according to Webster and Watson

Process description

"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."

This process and the included advice are based on what the authors, Webster and Watson, have learned from their experiences.

Beginning Your Article

Description

To hook your reader early, the introduction to your paper needs to motivate your topic, provide a working definition of your key variable(s), and clearly articulate the paperís contributions. Ways of demonstrating contributions include providing a new theoretical understanding that helps to explain previously confusing results, noting that little research has addressed this topic, providing calls from well-respected academics to examine this topic, bringing together previously-disparate streams of work to help shed light on a phenomenon, and suggesting important implications for practice.

The next section of your paper should provide more elaborate definitions of your key variables and set the boundaries on your work. Boundaries include issues like level(s) of analysis, temporal and contextual limitations, the scope of your review, and your implicit values.

For example, you should clearly state the unit or units of analysis undertaken in the review.

You also need to support the scope of your review: state what literature and fields you will draw upon and why these define an appropriate boundary for the chosen topic and level of analysis.

Finally, identify the values bounding your theory that is, your implicit assumptions concerning whose interests are served (such as top management, IS professionals, users, or other stakeholders.

Examples

Griffithís (1999) paper on ìtechnology features can be taken as an example. She motivates her topic by providing examples of practice ranging from aboriginalsí use of the steel axe to users concerns with Pentium chip errors She then articulates the contributions by

1. Outlining past research and highlighting its gaps,
2. Suggesting that she will address these shortcomings by proposing new theory,
3. Listing academics who have called for this research, and
4. Indicating that this research has important implications for practice

Further Readings

Webster, J. and Watson, R.T. (2002). Analyzing the Past to Prepare For the Future: Writing a Literature Review. MIS Quarterly, 26 (2), xiii-xxiii.

Identifying the Relevant Literature

Description

A high-quality review is complete and focuses on concepts. A complete review covers relevant literature on the topic and is not confined to one research methodology, one set of journals, or one geographic region.

We recommend a structured approach to determine the source material for the review:

• The major contributions are likely to be in the leading journals. It makes sense, therefore, to start with them. While journal databases like ABI/Inform (ProQuest) accelerate identification of relevant articles, scanning a journalís table of contents is a useful way to pinpoint others not caught by your keyword sieve. You should also examine selected conference proceedings, especially those with a reputation for quality. Because IS is an interdisciplinary field straddling other disciplines, you often must look not only within the IS discipline when reviewing and developing theory but also outside the field.
• Go backward by reviewing the citations for the articles identified in step 1 to determine prior articles you should consider.
• Go forward by using the Web of Science3 (the electronic version of the Social Sciences Citation Index) to identify articles citing the key articles identified in the previous steps. Determine which of these articles should be included in the review.

Examples

Malone and Crowston (1994) provide an excellent example of reviewing literature in related areas like computer science, economics, operations research, organization theory, and biology. Robey et al. (2000) present another admirable example of reviewing two major streams of research to inform their research topic.

Further Readings

Webster, J. and Watson, R.T. (2002). Analyzing the Past to Prepare For the Future: Writing a Literature Review. MIS Quarterly, 26 (2), xiii-xxiii.

Structuring the Review

Description

A literature review is concept-centric. Thus, concepts determine the organizing framework of a review. In contrast, some authors take an author-centric approach and essentially present a summary of the relevant articles. This method fails to synthesize the literature.

To make the transition from author- to concept-centric, it is recommended that you compile a concept matrix as you read each article, an idea adapted from Salipante et al.. When your reading is complete, synthesize the literature by discussing each identified concept. Before commencing this step, take some time to develop a logical approach to grouping and presenting the key concepts you have uncovered.

Tables and figures can be an effective means of communicating major findings and insights. Nonetheless, tables cannot be merely lists of articles. They need to add value by categorizing articles based on a scheme that helps to define the topic area, such as types of variables examined, level of analysis, gaps in the literature, or other important theoretical issues.

Examples

Te'eni (2002) found that the concept ìcommunication strategyî had different meanings when considered from the organizational, group, individual, and cognitive utterance levels. Isolating concepts by unit of analysis should result in a crisper review because it is easier to detect when you let a concept stray outside the scope of its domain.

Further Readings

Webster, J. and Watson, R.T. (2002). Analyzing the Past to Prepare For the Future: Writing a Literature Review. MIS Quarterly, 26 (2), xiii-xxiii.

Activity Name

Description

Provide an activity description.

Examples

Add some examples here.

Further Readings

Add some further readings here.