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.

Theoretical Development in Your Article

Description

A review should identify critical knowledge gaps and thus motivate researchers to close this breach. That is, writing a review not only requires an examination of past research but means making a chart for future research. Highlighting the discrepancy between what we know and what we need to know alerts other scholars to opportunities for a key contribution.

Usually, this roadmap is accomplished by developing a conceptual model with supporting propositions. However, there are other means of making a significant contribution. For instance, showing how competing theories or philosophical assumptions explain an important phenomenon can be very influential. Extending current theories or developing new theories will create directions for future research. However, extending or developing theories is a difficult task and is often the weakest part of a review. Nonetheless, it is the most important part of a review and generally needs the most elaboration.

Models and propositions capture relationships between variables, but do not, on their own, represent theory. The reasoning for propositions may come from three main sources:

• theoretical explanations for why
• past empirical findings
• practice or experience

The why or logical reasoning is the most important component of the explanation. It must always be part of any justification. It represents "the theoretical glue that welds the model together". Past empirical research also should be included if it exists. If it does not exist in the specific area of interest, however, empirical research in related areas should be presented as (weaker) support. Experience, if available, can also help to justify a proposition; it may arise from the authorís own experiences in interacting with organizations or from the practice literature. Nonetheless, while past findings and experience can help to support a proposition, keep in mind that they are not a substitute for logical reasoning.

Examples

In Griffithís research concerning technology features, we see that she draws on each of the three types of justification sources at various times.

For example, for one proposition, she provides a theoretical explanation (concerning verification) and gives an example from practice (Lotus Notes). For another proposition, she draws on past empirical research in a related area (concerning reward systems) and provides an example from her own experience (at several automobile assembly plants).

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.

Evaluating Your Theory

Description

Evaluating a theory is a difficult task. Writers argue that good theories should be memorable and provide answers to why. They should explain, predict, and delight. Others propose that they should be interesting yet parsimonious, falsifiable, and useful (Sutton and Staw 1995). Some argue that theories should be built from multiple paradigms (metal triangulation). Thus, they should exhibit creativity, relevance, and comprehensiveness.

With each revision, the paper evolves. Expose your paper to the fresh air and sunshine of collegial feedback. With each discussion, new ideas emerge. The ripening process is facilitated with hard work and frequent revisions.

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.

Creating Your Discussion and Conclusions

Description

Some reviews end abruptly with a short conclusion. However, even though you have completed the majority of your review paper at this point, you can still tell your colleagues more. For instance, returning to Griffith, we see that after she justifies her propositions, she goes on to demonstrate how her work extends past research, to suggest ways that her theory can be empirically examined, and to draw implications for practice and future theorizing.

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.