Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2015-6
Debating Systematic Literature Reviews (SLR) and their Ramifications for IS: A rejoinder to Mike Chiasson,Briony Oates,Ulrike Schultze,and Richard Watson
Systematic Literature Reviews (SLRs) are making their inroads into the IS discipline. By responding to the commentaries this rejoinder contributes to a debate about potential merits, limitations and wider ramifications of SLR for the IS discipline. More specifically we engage with the questions: What is an SLR and can it be conducted partially? How can literature reviews and SLR be improved? What is the view of ‘evidence’ in SLRs and the evidence-based practice movement and what are potential implications for ‘research informing IS practice'? How can the efficiency and effectiveness of literature reviews be improved? Overall we argue for a practice of critique that scrutinizes methodologies such as SLR in the light of values and ends we seek to achieve in the IS discipline.
AtkinsC., and LouwG. (2000). Reclaiming Knowledge: A Case for Evidence-Based Information Systems, In ECIS 2000 Proceedings, Vienna, Austria, Paper 28.
2.
BandaraW., MiskonS., and FieltE. (2011). A Systematic, Tool-Supported Method for Conducting Literature Reviews in Information Systems, In ECIS 2011 Proceedings, Helsinki, Finnland, Paper 221.
3.
BaumeisterR.E., and LearyM.R. (1997). Writing Narrative Literature Reviews, Review of General Psychology1 (3): 311–320.
4.
BoellS.K., and Cecez-KecmanovicD. (2014). A Hermeneutic Approach for Conducting Literature Reviews and Literature Searches, Communications of the Association for Information Systems34 (1): 257–286.
5.
EdwardsH., ChildsS., OatesB.J., and WainwrightD. (2014). Yet Another Journal! Is There any Need? Inaugural Editorial, Evidence Based Information Systems Journal1 (1): 1–7.
6.
FoxN.J. (2003). Practice-Based Evidence: Towards collaborative and transgressive research, Sociology37 (1): 81–102.
7.
GoldenbergM.J. (2006). On Evidence and Evidence-based Medicine: Lessons from the philosophy of science, Social Science and Medicine62 (11): 2621–2632.
8.
GreenhalghT., and RussellJ. (2005). Reframing Evidence Synthesis As Rhetorical Action in the Policy Making Drama, Healthcare Policy1 (1): 31–39.
9.
HartC. (1998). Doing a Literature Review. Releasing the Social Science Research Imagination, Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.
HolmesD., PerronA., and O'ByrneP. (2006). Evidence, Virulence, and the Disappearance of Nursing Knowledge: A critique of the evidence-based dogma, Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing3 (3): 110–117.
12.
HolmesD., MurrayS.J., PerronA., and McCabeJ. (2008). Nursing Best Practice Guidelines: Reflecting on the obscene rise of the void, Journal of Nursing Management16 (4): 394–403.
13.
KitchenhamB., PretoriusR., BudgenD., BreretonO.P., TurnerM., NiaziM., and LinkmanS. (2010). Systematic Literature Reviews in Software Engineering – A Tertiary Study, Information and Software Technology52 (8): 792–805.
14.
MajoneG. (1989). Evidence, Argument and Persuasion in the Policy Process, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
15.
MorrellK. (2008). The Narrative of ‘Evidence Based’ Management: A polemic, Journal of Management Studies45 (3): 612–635.
16.
MurrayS.J., HolmesD., PerronA., and RailG. (2007). No Exit? Intellectual Integrity Under the Regime of ‘Evidence’ and ‘Best-practices’, Journal of Evaluation of Clinical Practice13 (4): 512–516.
17.
OatesB.J., EdwardsH.M., and WainwrightD.W. (2012). A Model-Driven Method for the Systematic Literature Review of Qualitative Empirical Research, In ICIS 2012 Proceedings, Shanghai, China, pp. 1–18.
18.
PageD. (2008). Systematic Literature Searching and the Bibliographic Database Haystack, The Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods6 (2): 171–180.
19.
ParéG., TrudelM.-C., JaanaM., and KitsiouS. (2015). Synthesizing Information Systems Knowledge: A typology of literature reviews, Information & Management52 (2): 183–199.
20.
WebsterJ., and WatsonR.T. (2002). Analyzing the Past to Prepare for the Future: Writing a literature review, MIS Quarterly26 (2): xiii–xxiii.
21.
WolfswinkelJ.F., FurtmuellerE., and WilderomC.P.M. (2013). Using Grounded Theory as a Method for Rigorously Reviewing Literature, European Journal of Information Systems22 (1): 45–55.
22.
WongG., GreenhalghT., WesthorpG., BuckinghamJ., and PawsonR. (2013). RAMESES Publication Standards: Meta-narrative reviews, BMC Medicine11 (1): Paper 20.
