Webster Watson

8/13/2019 Webster Watson

1/12

Analyzing the Past to Prepare for the Future: Writing a Literature Review

Author(s): Jane Webster and Richard T. WatsonSource: MIS Quarterly, Vol. 26, No. 2 (Jun., 2002), pp. xiii-xxiiiPublished by: Management Information Systems Research Center, University of MinnesotaStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4132319

Accessed: 16/08/2009 11:54

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless

you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you

may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained athttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=misrc.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed

page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the

scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that

promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Management Information Systems Research Center, University of Minnesotais collaborating with JSTOR to

digitize, preserve and extend access toMIS Quarterly.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/stable/4132319?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=misrchttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=misrchttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/4132319?origin=JSTOR-pdf


2/12

Webster&Watson/GuestEditorial

ANALYZINGTHE PAST TO PREPAREFORTHEFUTURE: WRITINGALITERATUREREVIEWBy: Jane WebsterQueen's School of Business

Queen's UniversityKingston, ON [email protected]

RichardT.WatsonTerryCollege of BusinessThe Universityof GeorgiaAthens, GA [email protected]

A review of prior,relevant iterature s an essential featureof any academic project.An effective reviewcreates a firm oundation oradvancing knowledge.It acilitates heory development,closes areas wherea plethoraof researchexists, and uncovers areas whereresearch is needed.In he informationystems (IS)field,we see few publishedreviewarticles.As a result, he progressof ourfield is impeded. Toaddress this concern,the MISQuarterlyaunchedMISQReviewseveral years ago.Theclear intentionwas to accelerate the accumulation f ISknowledge. Aparticular oal was to advancethe state of theorywithin he IS field. The stated purposeof MISQReview is to

...promoteMISresearch by publishingarticlesthatconceptualizeresearch areas andsurvey and synthesize priorresearch. These articleswillprovideimportant nputinsettingdirections or futureresearch.1

The lack of theoreticalprogressinthe ISfieldmaybe surprising.Froman empiricalviewpoint,he IS fieldresembles other managementfields. Specifically,as fields of inquirydevelop, their theories are oftenplaced on a hierarchy romad hoc classificationsystems (inwhichcategories are used to summarizeempiricalobservations), to taxonomies (in which the relationshipsbetween the categories can bedescribed),to conceptual rameworksinwhichpropositions ummarizeexplanationsandpredictions),otheoreticalsystems (inwhich laws are containedwithinaxiomaticor formal heories)(Parsons and Shils1962). Inits shorthistory,IS research has developed fromclassificationsystems to conceptualframe-works.In he 1970s, itwas consideredpre-paradigmatic. oday, t s approachinghe levelofdevelopmentinempirical esearch ofothermanagementfields, likeorganizational ehavior Webster2001). However,unlikeother fields that have journalsdevoted to review articles (e.g., the Academy of ManagementReview), we see few review articles in IS-and hence the creation of MISQReview as a device foraccelerating developmentof the discipline.One reason we see so few theoreticalarticles nISrelates to the youthof the field. Anotherconcerns thecomplexityof assembling a reviewin an interdisciplinaryield. Thatis, constructinga review is a chal-

1http://www.misq.org/misreview/announce.html

MISQuarterlyVol.26 No. 2, pp. xiii-xxiii/June002 xiii


3/12


lenging process because we often need to drawon theoriesfroma varietyof fields. Moreover,we haveso few theoriesof our own. Nevertheless, the literature eviewrepresentsthe foundation orresearchinIS. As such, review articles are critical o strengtheningISas a fieldof study.Anotherchallenge relates to methods of structuring nd presentingthese reviews. As the initial enioreditors forMISQReview,we quicklyearned thatmanyIS scholars are not familiarwith he structureandformatofreviews,whichprovidedhemotivationor his article.Unfortunately,hisfindings not uncommoninotherareas, as has been noted:

Authorsof literatureeviewsareatrisk orproducingmind-numbingistsofcitationsandfindings hatresemblea phone book-impressive case, lots of numbers,butnotmuchplot. [Incontrast]a coherent reviewemerges onlyfroma coherentconceptualstruc-turingof the topic itself. For most reviews, this requiresa guiding theory, a set ofcompetingmodels, or a pointof view aboutthe phenomenonunder discussion [Bem1995, p. 172].

LikeBem inpsychology,we seek to encourage moreconceptualstructuringf reviewsinIS. Drawing nour editorial xperiences, as wellas other editors'experiences inrelated areas (e.g., Daft1985; Suttonand Staw 1995; Whetten1989), we believe that we can help prospectiveMISQReview authors and ISscholars ingeneral by settingforthsome guidelinesandthoughtson how to writea reviewarticle.2In hispaper,we firstconsiderwhoshouldwrite orMISQReview andidentifyhetypes of articles hat areappropriate.Next,we spend most of the paper providing dvice to would-be authors based on what wehave learned from ourexperiences. We then discuss the reviewingprocess. Finally,we conclude bysummarizing urexpectationsfora reviewarticle.

Prospective Authors and TopicsThere are two pointsin a scholar'slifethat lend themselves naturallyo writinga literature eview.First,those who have completedor made substantialprogresson a stream of research are wellpositioned otell theircolleagues whatthey have learned and where the field can most fruitfully irectits attention.Second, scholars who have completed a literature eview prior o embarkingon a projectand havedeveloped some theoreticalmodels derivedfrom his revieware also potentialauthors.From another angle, twotypes of reviews exist. First,authorscoulddeal witha mature opicwhere anaccumulatedbodyof researchexists thatneeds analysisand synthesis. In hiscase, theywouldconducta thorough iterature eviewand then proposea conceptualmodelthatsynthesizes and extends existingresearch. Second, authorscould tackle an emergingissue that wouldbenefitfromexposureto potentialtheoretical oundations.Here,the reviewof current iterature n the emerging topicwould,of necessity,be shorter. The author'scontributionwould arise fromthe fresh theoreticalfoundationsproposed indevelopinga conceptualmodel.Because literaturereviews are more time-consumingand have fewer outlets than research articles,prospectiveauthors should contact the current enior editorof MISQReview prior o commencing.An

2While hisarticle s centered aroundMISQReview, we believe much of what we say has generalvalue for most ISliterature eviews.

xiv MISQuarterlyVol.26 No. 2/June 2002


4/12


outlineof the reviewwillenable the senior editor o advise whetheranotherauthor s currentlyworking nthe topicand to give broadguidanceon the directionof the work.

Writinga Review ArticleTo assist youincrafting our paper,we indicate he broadstructure f a reviewpaperandprovide everalsuggestions onexecutingyourreview.We reflectonsome pragmaticssues (e.g., whatshould be includedin the introduction o your paper?) and some more ambiguous issues (e.g., how can you justifyaproposition?).Throughout,we provide examples from past articles in a varietyof fields to give youexemplarsof how others have addressed these issues.

Beginning Your ArticleInsome paperswe have received, the topicdoes not "emerge"untilwell into the article.Moreover, hecontributions re not clear. Incontrast, o hookyourreaderearly,the introductiono yourpaperneeds tomotivateyour opic, providea workingdefinition f your keyvariable(s),andclearlyarticulatehe paper'scontributions.Waysofdemonstrating ontributionsncludeproviding new theoreticalunderstandinghathelpstoexplainpreviously onfusingresults,noting hat littleresearch has addressed thistopic,providingcalls fromwell-respectedacademics to examine thistopic, bringing ogetherpreviously-disparatetreamsof work o helpshed lighton a phenomenon,and suggesting importantmplicationsorpractice.The next section ofyourpapershouldprovidemoreelaboratedefinitions f yourkeyvariablesandset theboundarieson yourwork. Boundaries include issues likelevel(s) of analysis, temporaland contextuallimitations,he scope of yourreview,and yourimplicitvalues (Bacharach1989; Whetten 1989). Forexample, youshouldclearlystate the unitor unitsof analysisundertaken n the review;however,be waryof tryingo go beyonda single unitunless you can providea strongrationale or a multilevelperspective.Further, f your theory applies only to certain contexts (e.g., types of occupations, organizations,orcountries)or to certain imeperiods,this should be identified orthe reader. You also need to support hescope of your review: state what literatureand fields you will draw upon and why these define anappropriate oundaryorthe chosen topicand level ofanalysis. Finally, dentifyhe values boundingyourtheory-that is, your implicit ssumptions concerningwhose interests are served (such as top manage-ment, IS professionals,users, or other stakeholders:Bacharach1989; livariet al. 1998).To show how these suggestions mightbe implemented,consider Griffith's1999) paperon "technologyfeatures." She motivates hertopicbyproviding xamples of practiceranging romaboriginals'use of thesteel axe to users' concerns withPentiumchiperrors(p. 472). She then articulates he contributionsby(1) outlining past research and highlightingts gaps, (2) suggesting that she willaddress these short-comings by proposing new theory, (3) listing academics who have called for this research, and(4) indicatinghat his research has importantmplicationsorpractice pp.473-474). Hersubsequentsec-tionsprovidedefinitionsof herkeyconcepts and delineate the boundarieson herresearch(pp.474-478).

Identifying the Relevant LiteratureA high-qualityeview s completeand focuses on concepts. A completereviewcovers relevant iteratureon the topic and is not confinedto one research methodology,one set of journals,or one geographic

MIS QuarterlyVol.26 No. 2/June 2002 xv


5/12

Webster&Watson/Guestditorial

region.However,a commentwe receivefrequentlyromreviewers s thatMISQReview submissions focussolely on NorthAmericanora small set of "top" ublications.As one reviewer ellinglynoted:

Studies of the IS literaturehave consistentlybeen limitedby drawingfroma smallsample ofjournals.Eventhoughthe[ones] investigatedhere mayhave reputationsasour top journals, that does not excuse an author frominvestigating"all" ublishedarticles in a field..../just can'tsee thejustification orsearching byjournalinstead ofsearching by topicacross all relevant ournals.

We recommenda structuredapproach o determine he source material or the review:(1) Themajor ontributions re likely o be inthe leading ournals.Itmakessense, therefore, o startwiththem. While ournaldatabases likeABI/InformProQuest)accelerate identificationf relevantarticles,

scanninga journal's able of contents is a usefulwayto pinpoint thers notcaughtbyyour keywordsieve. You should also examine selected conferenceproceedings, especiallythose witha reputationforquality.Because IS is an interdisciplinaryieldstraddling therdisciplines,youoftenmust look notonlywithinthe IS discipline when reviewingand developingtheory but also outside the field. Malone andCrowston 1994) providean excellentexampleof reviewing iteraturenrelatedareas likecomputerscience, economics, operations research, organization heory, and biology. Robey et al. (2000)present another admirableexample of reviewingtwo majorstreams of research to informtheirresearchtopic.

(2) Go backwardby reviewing he citations or the articles identified nstep 1 to determinepriorarticlesyou shouldconsider.

(3) Go forward yusingthe Web ofScience3(theelectronicversionof the Social Sciences Citation ndex)to identifyarticlescitingthe key articles identified n the previous steps. Determinewhichof thesearticlesshould be included nthe review.Asystematicsearch shouldensurethatyouaccumulatea relatively ompletecensus of relevant iterature.You can gauge thatyourreview is nearing completionwhen you are not findingnew concepts in yourarticle et. Ofcourse, youwillmiss some articles.If hese are critical o the review,however, heyare likelyto be identifiedby colleagues who readyour papereitherprioro or afteryoursubmission.

Structuring the ReviewA literature eview s concept-centric.Thus,concepts determine he organizingramework f a review. Incontrast,some authors akean author-centricpproachandessentially presenta summaryof the relevantarticles. This method fails to synthesize the literature.The two approaches are easily recognized, asillustratednTable 1.

3http://www.webofsciencecom/

xvi MISQuarterlyol.26No.2/June 002


6/12

Webster& Watson/GuestEditorial

Concept-centric Author-centricConceptX ... [authorA, authorB, ...] AuthorA ... concept X, concept Y, .Concept Y ... [authorA, author C, ...] Author B ... concept X, concept W,.

Articles ConceptsA B C D

1 K K K2 K

K KI

Articles ConceptsA B C DUnitof

analysis O G I O G I O G I 0 G I O G1 X X X2 X X X X

Legend:O (organizational),G (group),I(individual)

To make the transitionromauthor- o concept-centric,we recommend hatyoucompilea conceptmatrixas you read each article(Table 2), an idea we have adaptedfromSalipanteet al. (1982). When yourreading s complete,synthesize the literature ydiscussing each identified oncept. Beforecommencingthisstep, take some time to developa logical approachto groupingand presenting he key concepts youhave uncovered.Youmightneed to add a furtherdimensionto the concept matrix o handle the unitof analysis (Table3).Forexample,Te'eni(2002)found hattheconcept"communicationtrategy" addifferentmeaningswhenconsideredfromthe organizational, roup,individual, nd cognitiveutterance evels. Isolatingconceptsby unitof analysis shouldresultin a crisperreview because itis easier to detect when you let a conceptstrayoutsidethe scope of its domain.

MISQuarterlyVol. 26 No. 2/June2002 xvii


7/12


Tables andfigurescan be an effectivemeans ofcommunicatingmajor indingsandinsights.Nonetheless,tables cannot be merely lists of articles.They need to add value by categorizingarticles based on ascheme that helps to define the topicarea, such as types of variablesexamined,level of analysis, gapsin the literature, r otherimportantheoretical ssues.For nstance, DeLone and McLean 1992) includea set of tables summarizinghe literature n IS successby level of analysis, typeof study,and success measures. As anotherexample,Bem (1995) describes areview in which past research is categorized by whether the studies supportone of three competingmodels-by doing so, the authors are able to discover a recognizable patternsupportingone of themodels. Alaviand Leidner's 2001)table of knowledge axonomies makes iteasy forthe reader o quicklydetermine he meaningof a particular nowledgetype,whichis especiallyusefulin a longarticle.Finally,the six figures and 13 tables in Te'eni's (2001) review articlehelpto communicatehis message moreclearly.A reviewsucceeds when ithelpsother scholars to makesense of the accumulatedknowledgeon a topic.We believe thatsense-makingis enhanced when a review s logically tructured round he topic'scentralideas andmakesgood use of tables andfigurestoconveyeconomicallyhe keyfindingsandrelationships.

ToneA successful literature eviewconstructivelynforms he readeraboutwhat has been learned.Incontrastto specific and criticalreviews of individualpapers, tell the reader what patterns you are seeing intheliterature.Do not fall into the trapof being overlycritical,as Daft(1985, p. 198) arguedwhen describingwhyhe rejectedsome journal ubmissions:

...another indicatorof amateurismwas an overlynegative approachto the previousliterature....Previouswork s alwaysvulnerable.Criticizings easy, and of littlevalue;itis moreimportanto explainhow research buildsuponprevious indingsrather hantoclaimpreviousresearch is inadequateand incompetent.Respect the workof those who labored o create the foundation oryourcurrentworkby keepingin mindthat all research is flawed (McGrath 982). Ofcourse, you cannotcite others'workblindly-sometimesresearch is poorlydesigned and conducted,and you willneed to make harddecisions aboutwhethertoinclude this workin yourreviewor to downplayits significance. Further, f a research stream has acommon "error"hat must be rectifiednfutureresearch,youwillneed to point his outinorder o move thefield forward.Ingeneral,though,be fault olerant. Recognizethatknowledge s accumulatedslowly napiecemealfashion and thatwe all makecompromisesinourresearch,even whenwriting reviewarticle.

TenseOpinions variedon whetherwhenwriting boutprior esearchyoushouldmainlyuse the presentorpasttense. When either ense can communicateequallyeffectively,we optforthe presentfor several reasons.First, tgives the readera greatersense of immediacy.Second, whendiscussingconcepts, andinlinewithourconcept-centricapproach o literature eviews,it is logical o use the presenttense because conceptsarealwayshere and now.Third,he presenttense is terser and thus fasterfor he reader o process. Thereis an exception to this recommendation.Anauthor'sopinionscan change withtime. When attributingstatement or idea to a person,therefore,use the past tense: "MaxWebermay no longerbe sayingwhathe once said"(Starbuck1999).

xviii MISQuarterlyVol.26 No. 2/June 2002


8/12


Theoretical Development in YourArticleA reviewshouldidentify riticalknowledgegaps and thus motivateresearchersto close this breach. Thatis, writing reviewnotonly requiresan examination f past research,but means makinga chart orfutureresearch. Forexample,the MISQReviewarticlesbyAlaviand Leidner 2001) andTe'eni(2001) pinpointquestions for future nquiry.Highlightinghe discrepancybetween what we knowandwhat we need to knowalerts other scholars toopportunitiesora key contribution.Usually,this roadmap s accomplished by developinga conceptualmodelwithsupportingpropositions.Inthis paper,we focus on this traditional pproach.However, hereareothermeans ofmakinga significant ontributionWhetten1989).For nstance,showinghowcompetingtheories or philosophicalassumptions explainan importantphenomenoncan be very influentiale.g.,Allison's[1969] analysis of the Cuban missilecrisis).Extending urrent heories ordevelopingnew theorieswillcreate directions or futureresearch.However,extendingordevelopingtheoriesis a difficultask and is oftenthe weakest partof a review.Nonetheless,it is the most important artof a reviewandgenerallyneeds the most elaboration.Here,we provide omerecommendationsorresearcherswho wishto develop a modelandjustify ts propositions.Conceptualmodels are generallyderived romvariance(factor)or process theories (Markus nd Robey1988;Mohr1982).Variance heoriesincorporate ndependentvariables hatcause variationndependentvariables.Incontrast,process theories use events and states to helpexplaindynamicphenomena.Thus,models may lookverydifferent n the two approaches (see Figure1 of Langley [1999]forexamples ofthese twotypesof models).Ofcourse, reviewarticlesmaydraw rombothvarianceandprocess researchto developconceptualmodels to guidefutureresearch.In act,DiMaggio 1995, p. 392) arguedthat"manyof the best theories arehybrids, ombining he best qualities" f these approaches. Moreover,Sabherwaland Robey(1995)demonstratehow the twoapproachescan be reconciled none study.Thus,do nottreatthe results of variance and process researchas independentelements of a review.Rather,makeeveryeffort o show how these two approaches reveala deeper understandingof the topic. Forexample,theexplanatorypowerof a process model mightbe contingenton the strengthof a particular ariable,asNewman and Sabherwal(1991) illustrate.Models and propositionscapturerelationshipsbetween variables,but do not, on theirown, representtheory (Sutton and Staw 1995). For example, Griffith's1999) propositionla (p. 480) states that,"New/adapted oncrete features are more likely o be experiencedas novel than new/adaptedabstractfeatures." Rather, he reasoningorjustificationorthese relationshipsrepresentsthe crucialpartof thetheory-developmentprocess.Thereasoning orpropositionsmaycome from hreemain ources: theoretical xplanationsor"why," astempirical indings,andpracticeorexperience. Thewhyorlogicalreasoningis the most importantompo-nentof the explanation.Itmustalwaysbe partof any justification. trepresents"the heoreticalglue thatwelds the modeltogether" Whetten1989, p. 491). Past empiricalresearch also should be included if itexists. If it does not exist in the specific area of interest,however,empiricalresearch in relatedareasshould be presentedas (weaker)support Gayand Diehl1992). Experience, favailable,can also helptojustifya proposition;tmayarisefrom heauthor'sownexperiences in nteractingwithorganizations r fromthe practice iterature.Nonetheless, whilepast findingsandexperiencecan helpto supporta proposition,keep in mind hatthey are not a substitute orlogicalreasoning (Suttonand Staw 1995).As justifyingpropositionsoften representsone of the most challengingaspects of a reviewpaper,let uslookat several examples. First, fwe examineGriffith'sesearchconcerning echnologyfeatures,we see

MISQuarterlyVol.26 No. 2/June 2002 xix


9/12


thatshe drawson each of the threetypes of justificationources at varioustimes. Forexample,foroneproposition, he providesa theoreticalexplanation concerningverification) nd gives an examplefrompractice(LotusNotes). Foranotherproposition, he drawson past empiricalresearch in a related area(concerningreward ystems) and providesan examplefromher own experience (atseveral automobileassembly plants).As anotherexample,examine Moorman nd Miner's1998) paperon organizationalmemory.Manyof thepropositionsuse allthreetypes of justificationources. Forexample,to justifya proposition oncerningproceduralmemoryandspeed, the authors irstdrawon theoryaboutthe automaticqualityof proceduralmemory fromcognition), hen reporton empirical upport roma relatedarea (teachers),and endwithanexamplefrompractice(improvisation uringwar).

Evaluating YourTheoryOnce you have developedyour heory(suchas model,propositions,andjustifications), owdo you knowifit is good? This evaluation s difficult nd nebulous.Writersarguethatgoodtheories should be memorableandprovideanswerstowhy. Theyshouldexplain,predict, and delight (Weick 1995). Others propose that they should be interesting (Davis 1971) yetparsimonious,alsifiable,and useful(Suttonand Staw1995).Some arguethat heories should be built rommultipleparadigms metatriangulation).hus, they should exhibitcreativity, elevance, and comprehen-siveness (Lewisand Grimes1999, p. 685).Reviewers are looking orgood theories, butthere is no cookbookapproach o accomplishing his. Oneimportantwayto assist you inthis evaluationprocess is to have colleagues read and comment on yourworkbeforesubmittingtfor review(Bem 1995).As Daft(1985, p. 207) observed:

Witheach revision, he paperripens.Expose your paperto the fresh air and sunshineof collegialfeedback.Witheach discussion, new ideas emerge. The ripeningprocessis facilitatedwithhardworkandfrequentrevisions.

Creating YourDiscussion and ConclusionsSome reviews end abruptlywitha short conclusion. However,even thoughyou have completedthemajority f yourreviewpaperat this point,you can stilltellyourcolleagues more. Forinstance,returningto Griffith,we see that after she justifies her propositions,she goes on to demonstratehow her workextends past research, to suggest ways that her theory can be empiricallyexamined, and to drawimplicationsorpracticeand future heorizing pp. 484-486).

The Reviewing and Revision ProcessA reviewpaperembodiesthe "stateofthe field."As such, itrepresentsa benchmarkorothersconductingfutureresearch in yourarea. You shouldreap the benefits of citationsto yourarticleforyears to comebecause yourworkshould hew a pathforothers. Because of the value and importanceof a high-qualityreviewfor the field,the firstchoices for reviewersare currentMISQuarterlyAssociate Editors.We also

xx MISQuarterlyVol.26 No. 2/June2002


10/12


contact seniorexpertsconductingresearch on the particularopicof the review.Thus,reviewsarewrittenbywell-qualified, ccomplished scholars. The benefit is thatyou willreceive a detailed, developmentalreview. The downside is that these reviewerswillrecognize many opportunitiesoryou to improve hequalityof yourwork. As a result,the revisionwilltake more effort han the revision or a regulararticle.Whatconcerns have reviewersgenerallypointedoutintheircommentson MISQReviewpapers? "What'snew?"always seems to be highlightedby reviewers,and earlierwe listed ways of demonstrating hecontributionsfyourpaper.However,reviewersarelooking or notone, buta combination f contributions.Sayingthat "ithasn't been done before"on its ownwillnot convinceyourreviewers. Moregenerally,andconsistentwithWhetten's(1989)most-frequentlyccurringypesof reviewer oncerns,we have found hatreviewers are looking for contribution "what'snew?"), impact ("so what?"), logic ("whyso?"), andthoroughness("well one?").Youwillbe well onyourwayto a publishablepaper fyoucan address thesefourmajorconcerns when firstsubmitting our paper.Responding o the reviewers'concernsdiffers roma traditional esearchpaper ntwomajoraspects. First,the revisionprocess is generallylongerbecause ittakes time to reread and reinterprethe literature nwhichyourarticle s based. You also willneed to read and integratearticlessuggested bythe reviewers.Second, because a revision o a longpapercan involvemany changes, itis helpful o developa planforthe review and share it withthe editor and reviewers.A planclarifies how you willhandle the possiblydisparaterecommendationsof reviewers.If he reviewersdisagreeon howyouwillreconcile heiradvice,then considerable imeandanguishis saved ifthisdivergenceof views is sorted out beforeyou launchona major evision.MISQReview does notrequireauthors o submita plan prioro revision,butwe certainlyurgeyou to consider this option.

SummaryAnideal article:* motivatesthe researchtopicand explainsthe review'scontributions* describes the key concepts* delineates the boundariesof the research* reviewsrelevantprior iteraturen ISand relatedareas* develops a model to guidefutureresearch* justifies propositionsby presentingtheoreticalexplanations, past empirical indings,and practical

examples* presents concluding mplicationsorresearchers and managers.And on top of this, the exemplaryreviewarticleshould be explanatoryand creativeMISQReview articles are significantly ongerthan regularMISQuarterly rticles,so authorshave thespace to develop such an ideal article.Nevertheless, this task is not straightforward.We challenge youto craftsuch contributions orMISQReview to move the fieldforward. LikeSutton and Staw's (1995, p.380) conclusion aboutorganizational esearch,we believe that

Without onstantpressurefortheory building,he field wouldsurelyslide to its naturalresting place indust-bowlempiricism.

MIS QuarterlyVol.26 No. 2/June 2002 xxi


11/12


AcknowledgmentsWe thankBrentGallupe,TerriGriffith,DorothyLeidner,Ji-Ye Mao,Shan LingPan, Dan Robey, MikkoSiponen,and DovTe'eni or heircommentson anearlierdraft f thispaper.Theirnsightsandexperiencesadded considerable valuable.

ReferencesAlavi, M., and Leidner, D. E. "KnowledgeManagement and Knowledge Management Systems:

ConceptualFoundationsand Research Issues,"MISQuarterly 25:1),March2001, pp. 107-136.Allison,G.T. "ConceptualModelsandthe Cuban MissileCrisis,"TheAmericanPoliticalScience Review(63:3), 1969, pp. 689-718.

Bacharach,S. B. "Organizationalheories: Some Criteria or Evaluation," cademy of ManagementReview(14:4) 1989, pp496-515.Bem, D.J. "Writing ReviewArticle orPsychologicalBulletin," sychologicalBulletin 118:2), 1995, pp.172-177.Daft,R. L. "Why Recommended ThatYourManuscriptBe RejectedandWhatYou Can DoAboutIt,"n

Publishing n the Organizationalciences, L.L.Cummingsand P. J. Frost(eds.), Irwin,Homewood,IL,1985, pp. 193-209.Davis, M.S. "That's nteresting ,"hilosophyof Social Science (1), 1971, pp. 309-344.DeLone, W. H., and McLean,E. R. "Informationystems Success: The Quest for the DependentVariable,"nformation ystems Research (3:1), 1992, pp. 60-95.DiMaggio,P. J. "Comments n 'WhatTheoryIs Not',"Administrativecience Quarterly40:3), 1995, pp.391-397.Gay, L. R., and Diehl,P. L. Research MethodsforBusiness and Management,Macmillan,New York,1992, pp. xxiv,679.Griffith, . L. "TechnologyFeatures as Triggers or Sensemaking,"Academyof ManagementReview(24:3), 1999, pp. 472-488.livari,J., Hirschheim,R. A., and Klein,H. K. "AParadigmaticAnalysisContrasting nformationystems

DevelopmentApproachesand Methodologies,"nformationystems Research (9:2),1998, pp. 164-193.Langley,A. "StrategiesorTheorizingromProcess Data,"AcademyofManagementReview(24:4),1999,pp. 691-710.Lewis,M.W.,andGrimes,A. J. "Metatriangulations:uildingTheory romMultiple aradigms,"Academyof ManagementReview(24:4),1999, pp. 672-690.Malone,T.W., and Crowston,K. "The nterdisciplinarytudyof Coordination,"CMComputingSurveys

(26:1), 1994, pp. 87-119.Markus,M.L.,and Robey,D. "Informationechnologyand OrganizationalChange: Causal StructurenTheoryand Research,"ManagementScience (34:5), 1988, pp. 583-598.

McGrath, . E. "Dilemmatics:The Studyof Research Choices and Dilemmas,"n JudgmentCalls inResearch, J. E. McGrath, . Martin,nd R. A.Kulkaeds.), Sage, BeverlyHills,CA,1982, pp.69-102.

Mohr,L. B. ExplainingOrganizational ehavior 1st' d.), Jossey-Bass, San Francisco,1982, pp.xv,260.Moorman,C., and Miner,A. S. "Organizationalmprovisationnd OrganizationalMemory," cademyofManagementReview (23:4),1998, pp.698-723.Newman, M.,andSabherwal,R. "Informationystems Development:FourProcess ScenarioswithCaseStudies,"Journalof Informationystems (5:1), 1991.Parsons, T., and Shils, E. A. Toward GeneralTheoryof Action,Harper&Row,New York,1962.

xxii MISQuarterly ol.26 No. 2/June 002


12/12


Robey, D., Boudreau,M.-C.,and Rose, G. M. "Informationechnologyand OrganizationalLearning:AReview and Assessment of Research,"Accounting, Management,and InformationTechnologies(10:2),2000, pp. 125-155.

Sabherwal,R., and Robey, D. "ReconcilingVariance and Process Strategies for StudyingInformationSystems Development,"nformationystems Research (6:4), 1995, pp. 303-323.Salipante, P., Notz, W., and Bigelow,J. "AMatrixApproachto LiteratureReviews,"in Research in

Organizational ehavior,B. M.Stawand L. L.Cummings eds.), JAIPress, Greenwich,CT,1982, pp.321-348.Starbuck,W. H. "FussyProfessor Starbuck's Cookbook of Handy-DandyPrescriptions or AmbitiousAcademicAuthors," 999, http://www.stern.nyu.edu/-wstarbuc/Writing/Fussy.htmaccessed March30, 2002).Sutton,R. I.,and Staw,B. M. "WhatTheoryIsNot,"Administrative cience Quarterly40), 1995, pp.371-384.Te'eni,D. "ACognitive-AffectiveModelof OrganizationalCommunicationorDesigningIT,"MISQuarterly(25:2),2001, pp.251-312.Te'eni,D. PersonalCommunication,002.Webster,J. (inLee, A. S.). "WhatWe Haven'tLearned,"MISQuarterly25:4),2001, pp.xii-xiii.Weick,K. "Definitionf 'Theory',"nBlackwellDictionary f Organizational ehavior,N. Nicholson(ed.),Blackwell,Oxford,1995.Whetten,D. A. "WhatConstitutesa TheoreticalContribution?,"cademyof ManagementReview(14:4),1989, pp.490-495.

About the AuthorsJane Webster is the currentsenior editor for MISQReview. She received her Ph.D. from New YorkUniversity nd is a professorinthe School of Business at Queen's Universityn Canada. Her researchinterests centeraroundelectronicmonitoring,rganizational ommunication, ndcomputer-based elec-tion, training,and testing issues. She has publishedin a varietyof journals,includingMISQuarterly,Academyof ManagementJournal,CommunicationResearch, and Organization cience.Richard Watson is the J. Rex FuquaDistinguishedChair orInternetStrategyand Director f the Centerfor Informationystems Leadership nthe TerryCollege of Business, the University f Georgia. He haspublished n leadingjournals nseveral fields as well as authoredbooks on data managementand elec-troniccommerce and given invited eminars in nearly20 countries.He is VP of Communications f AIS.He was a senior editorof MISQuarterlywithresponsibilityorMISQReview.He is a visitingprofessoratAgderUniversityCollege, Norway,and a consultingeditor o JohnWiley& Sons.

MISQuarterly ol.26No.2/June2002 xxiii

Webster Watson

Documents

Transcript of Webster Watson