Synthesizing information systems knowledge: A typology of literature reviews

Highlights

• We proposed a typology of nine review types based on seven core dimensions.

• The number of reviews in top-ranked IS journals has increased between 1999 and 2013.

• Theoretical and narrative reviews are the most prevalent types in top IS journals.

• We found inconsistencies in the labels used by authors to qualify IS reviews.

• A majority of IS reviews reported only scholars as their target audience.

Abstract

In this article we develop a typology of review types and provide a descriptive insight into the most common reviews found in top IS journals. Our assessment reveals that the number of IS reviews has increased over the years. The majority of the 139 reviews are theoretical in nature, followed by narrative reviews, meta-analyses, descriptive reviews, hybrid reviews, critical reviews, and scoping reviews. Considering the calls for IS research to develop a cumulative tradition, we hope more review articles will be published in the future and encourage researchers who start a review to use our typology to position their contribution.

Introduction

The information systems (IS) community has grown considerably since it first emerged in the 1960s. Over the past 50 years, the development of IS as a scientific field is evidenced by the solid research tradition that has been built. Indeed, an increasing volume of IS research uses IS itself as the reference discipline [1]. The growth of our field is also related to the fact that IS research is emerging as an important reference discipline for other fields, such as psychology, education, marketing, operations management, and many other management domains [2]. The rapid diffusion of IS knowledge both within and outside its own boundaries requires researchers to find a way to quickly synthesize the extent of the literature on various topics of interest and address any and all relevant gaps [3].

The accumulation of knowledge is an essential condition for a field to “be scientific” and to develop [4]. More precisely, conducting effective literature reviews is essential to advance the knowledge and understand the breadth of the research on a topic of interest, synthesize the empirical evidence, develop theories or provide a conceptual background for subsequent research, and identify the topics or research domains that require more investigation [5], [6], [7], [8]. Literature reviews are also valuable as a means of becoming oriented in an emerging domain and as an aid in teaching [9], [10]. While the importance of producing high-quality literature reviews in the IS domain is well recognized [11], [12], [13], we feel there remains confusion about the term “review” and, most importantly, the types of review articles that are published in our field.

The most prevalent type of review is commonly labeled the “literature review” or “theoretical background” within an empirical article. This section of a paper usually provides the theoretical foundations and context of the research question and helps bring the research question into focus [14]. According to Baker [15], it represents an “essential first step and foundation when undertaking a research project” (p. 219). More precisely, the literature review section helps the researcher understand the existing body of knowledge, provides a theoretical foundation for the proposed empirical study, substantiates the presence of the research problem, justifies the proposed study as one that contributes something new to the cumulated knowledge, and/or frames the valid research methodologies, approaches, goals and research questions for the proposed study [12].

There exists another type of literature review that constitutes an original and valuable work of research in and of itself. Rather than providing a basis for the researcher's own endeavors, it creates a solid starting point for all other members of the academic community that are interested in a particular topic [9], [16]. The so-called “review article” is a journal-length article that has an overarching purpose of summarizing or synthesizing the literature in a field without collecting or analyzing any primary data. Review articles can be undertaken for several reasons, such as analyzing the progress of a specific stream of research, aggregating findings or reconciling equivocal results of prior studies, reviewing the application of a theoretical model or a methodological approach, developing a new theory or research model and providing a critical account of prior research on a particular topic or method [5].

Recognizing that knowledge accumulation increasingly relies on the integration of previous studies and findings, several senior IS scholars have made calls for more review articles in our field [2], [11], [17]. As a clear indication of the increasing need for review articles, the MIS Quarterly Review department was created in 2001 with the aim of representing an ideal communication outlet for synthesizing prior research and sharing knowledge [17]. In 2007, this department became MISQ Theory and Review with the goal of redirecting the attention of researchers to the concepts and theories used in the IS field and encouraging them to embark on IS theory building [18]. Despite this shift in focus toward theory building, MISQ Theory and Review has maintained the review component as part of its mission. In short, we believe that the enhanced role of review articles in our field requires that this expository form be given careful scrutiny.

Our primary goal in this article is to demystify the various types of literature reviews that exist. To do so, we first review the extant literature on that topic to come up with a typology that identifies, defines and contrasts various forms of research syntheses. It is our hope that the proposed typology will serve as a valuable resource for those that conduct, evaluate and/or interpret reviews both within and outside the IS field. Our second objective is to provide descriptive insight into the most common review types found in top-ranked IS journals. To our knowledge, no prior research has conducted a formal assessment of the review practices in our domain. The present study attempts to fill this gap. In the next sections, we explain the process that we followed to develop our typology and then describe and illustrate each review type.