Literature Review according to Webster and Watson: Difference between revisions
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
This process and the included advice are based on what the authors, Webster and Watson, have learned from their experiences. | This process and the included advice are based on what the authors, Webster and Watson, have learned from their experiences. | ||
== | ==Beginning Your Article== | ||
===Description=== | ===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=== | ===Examples=== | ||
Griffithís (1999) paper on ìtechnology features can be taken as an example<ref>Griffith, T. L. ìTechnology Features as Triggers for Sensemaking,î Academy of Management Review (24:3), 1999, pp. 472-488.</ref>. 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 | |||
# Outlining past research and highlighting its gaps, | |||
# Suggesting that she will address these shortcomings by proposing new theory, | |||
# Listing academics who have called for this research, and | |||
# Indicating that this research has important implications for practice | |||
===Further Readings=== | ===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. | 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 2== | ==Activity 2== | ||
===Description=== | ===Description=== | ||
Revision as of 05:39, 21 August 2020
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."[1]
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[2]. 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
- Outlining past research and highlighting its gaps,
- Suggesting that she will address these shortcomings by proposing new theory,
- Listing academics who have called for this research, and
- 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.
Activity 2
Description
Describe Activity 2.
Examples
Provide some examples for activity 2.
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 X
Description
Describe the Activity X.
Examples
Provide some examples for activity X.
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.