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

Author(s): Jane Webster and Richard T. Watson

Source: MIS Quarterly, Vol. 26, No. 2 (Jun., 2002), pp. xiii-xxiii
Published by: Management Information Systems Research Center, University of Minnesota
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4132319
Accessed: 04/08/2010 19:36

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 at
http://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 service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Management Information Systems Research Center, University of Minnesota is collaborating with JSTOR to
digitize, preserve and extend access to MIS Quarterly.

http://www.jstor.org
 Webster& Watson/GuestEditorial

ANALYZINGTHE PAST TO PREPARE

FOR THE FUTURE: WRITINGA
LITERATUREREVIEW

By: Jane Webster Richard T. Watson

Queen's School of Business TerryCollege of Business
Queen's University The University of Georgia
Kingston, ON K7L3N6 Athens, GA 30602-6273
CANADA U.S.A.
jwebster@business.queensu.ca rwatson@terry.uga.edu

A reviewof prior,relevantliteratureis an essential feature of any academic project.An effective review

creates a firmfoundationfor advancingknowledge.Itfacilitatestheorydevelopment,closes areas where
a plethoraof research exists, and uncovers areas where research is needed.

Inthe informationsystems (IS)field,we see few publishedreviewarticles.As a result,the progress of our

field is impeded. To address this concern, the MISQuarterlylaunched MISQReview several years ago.
The clear intentionwas to accelerate the accumulationof IS knowledge. A particulargoal was to advance
the state of theorywithinthe IS field. The stated purpose of MISQReview is to

...promote MISresearch by publishingarticlesthat conceptualize research areas and

survey and synthesize priorresearch. These articles will provide importantinput in
setting directionsforfutureresearch.1

The lack of theoreticalprogress in the IS fieldmay be surprising.Froman empiricalviewpoint,the IS field

resembles other management fields. Specifically,as fields of inquirydevelop, their theories are often
placed on a hierarchyfrom ad hoc classificationsystems (in which categories are used to summarize
empirical observations), to taxonomies (in which the relationships between the categories can be
described),to conceptualframeworks(inwhichpropositionssummarizeexplanationsand predictions),to
theoreticalsystems (in which laws are containedwithinaxiomaticor formaltheories) (Parsons and Shils
1962). In its short history,IS research has developed from classificationsystems to conceptual frame-
works.Inthe 1970s, itwas considered pre-paradigmatic.Today,itis approachingthe level of development
in empiricalresearch of othermanagementfields, likeorganizationalbehavior(Webster2001). However,
unlike other fields that have journals devoted to review articles (e.g., the Academy of Management
Review), we see few review articles in IS-and hence the creation of MISQReview as a device for
accelerating developmentof the discipline.

One reason we see so few theoreticalarticlesin IS relates to the youthof the field. Anotherconcerns the
complexityof assembling a review in an interdisciplinary field. That is, constructinga review is a chal-

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

MISQuarterlyVol.26 No. 2, pp. xiii-xxiii/June2002 xiii

Webster& Watson/GuestEditorial

lenging process because we often need to drawon theories froma varietyof fields. Moreover,we have
so few theories of our own. Nevertheless, the literaturereviewrepresents the foundationfor research in
IS. As such, reviewarticlesare criticalto strengtheningIS as a field of study.

Anotherchallenge relates to methods of structuringand presenting these reviews. As the initialsenior

editorsfor MISQReview, we quicklylearnedthat many IS scholars are not familiarwiththe structureand
formatof reviews,whichprovidedthe motivationforthis article.Unfortunately,
thisfindingis notuncommon
in other areas, as has been noted:

Authorsof literaturereviewsare at riskforproducingmind-numbinglists of citationsand

findingsthat resemble a phone book-impressive case, lots of numbers,but not much
plot. [Incontrast]a coherent review emerges only from a coherent conceptual struc-
turingof the topic itself. For most reviews, this requires a guiding theory, a set of
competing models, or a pointof view about the phenomenon under discussion [Bem
1995, p. 172].

LikeBem in psychology,we seek to encourage more conceptualstructuringof reviews in IS. Drawingon

our editorialexperiences, as well as other editors'experiences in related areas (e.g., Daft 1985; Sutton
and Staw 1995; Whetten 1989), we believe that we can help prospective MISQReview authorsand IS
scholars in general by setting forthsome guidelines and thoughtson how to writea reviewarticle.2

Inthis paper,we firstconsiderwho should writefor MISQReview and identifythe types of articlesthatare
appropriate.Next, we spend most of the paper providingadvice to would-be authorsbased on what we
have learned from our experiences. We then discuss the reviewingprocess. Finally,we conclude by
summarizingour expectationsfor a reviewarticle.

Prospective Authors and Topics

There are two points in a scholar's life that lend themselves naturallyto writinga literaturereview. First,
those who have completed or made substantialprogress on a stream of research are well positionedto
tell their colleagues what they have learned and where the field can most fruitfullydirect its attention.
Second, scholars who have completed a literaturereview priorto embarkingon a project and have
developed some theoreticalmodels derivedfromthis revieware also potentialauthors.

From another angle, two types of reviews exist. First,authors could deal with a maturetopic where an
accumulatedbody of research exists that needs analysis and synthesis. Inthis case, they wouldconduct
a thoroughliteraturereviewand then propose a conceptualmodel that synthesizes and extends existing
research. Second, authorscould tackle an emerging issue that would benefitfromexposure to potential
theoreticalfoundations.Here, the reviewof currentliteratureon the emerging topic would, of necessity,
be shorter. The author's contributionwould arise from the fresh theoreticalfoundations proposed in
developing a conceptual model.

Because literaturereviews are more time-consumingand have fewer outlets than research articles,
prospective authorsshould contact the currentsenior editorof MISQReview priorto commencing. An

2Whilethis articleis centered aroundMISQReview, we believe much of what we say has general value for most IS
literaturereviews.

xiv MISQuarterlyVol.26 No. 2/June 2002

 Webster& Watson/GuestEditorial

outlineof the reviewwillenable the senior editorto advise whetheranotherauthoris currentlyworkingon

the topic and to give broadguidance on the directionof the work.

Writing a Review Article

To assist you in craftingyourpaper,we indicatethe broadstructureof a reviewpaperand provideseveral
suggestions on executingyourreview.We reflecton some pragmaticissues (e.g., whatshouldbe included
in the introductionto your paper?) and some more ambiguous issues (e.g., how can you justify a
proposition?).Throughout,we provide examples from past articles in a variety of fields to give you
exemplarsof how others have addressed these issues.

Beginning YourArticle
In some papers we have received, the topic does not "emerge"untilwell intothe article.Moreover,the
contributionsare not clear. Incontrast,to hook your readerearly,the introductionto your paper needs to
motivateyourtopic, providea workingdefinitionof yourkey variable(s),and clearlyarticulatethe paper's
contributions.Ways of demonstratingcontributionsincludeprovidinga new theoreticalunderstandingthat
helps to explainpreviouslyconfusingresults, notingthat littleresearch has addressed this topic, providing
calls fromwell-respectedacademics to examinethistopic, bringingtogetherpreviously-disparatestreams
of workto help shed lighton a phenomenon, and suggesting importantimplicationsfor practice.

The next section of yourpapershould providemoreelaboratedefinitionsof yourkey variablesand set the

boundarieson your work. Boundaries include issues like level(s) of analysis, temporaland contextual
limitations,the scope of your review, and your implicitvalues (Bacharach 1989; Whetten 1989). For
example, you should clearlystate the unitor unitsof analysis undertakenin the review;however,be wary
of tryingto go beyond a single unitunless you can providea strong rationalefor a multilevelperspective.
Further,if your theory applies only to certain contexts (e.g., types of occupations, organizations, or
countries)or to certaintime periods,this should be identifiedforthe reader. You also need to supportthe
scope of your review: state what literatureand fields you will draw upon and why these define an
appropriateboundaryforthe chosen topic and level of analysis. Finally,identifythe values boundingyour
theory-that is, your implicitassumptions concerningwhose interests are served (such as top manage-
ment, IS professionals, users, or other stakeholders:Bacharach 1989; livariet al. 1998).

To show how these suggestions mightbe implemented,consider Griffith's(1999) paper on "technology

features." She motivatesher topic by providingexamples of practicerangingfromaboriginals'use of the
steel axe to users' concerns with Pentiumchip errors(p. 472). She then articulatesthe contributionsby
(1) outliningpast research and highlightingits gaps, (2) suggesting that she will address these short-
comings by proposing new theory, (3) listing academics who have called for this research, and
(4) indicatingthatthis research has importantimplicationsfor practice(pp.473-474). Hersubsequent sec-
tions providedefinitionsof her key concepts and delineate the boundarieson her research (pp. 474-478).

Identifying the Relevant Literature

A high-qualityreviewis complete and focuses on concepts. A complete reviewcovers relevantliterature
on the topic and is not confined to one research methodology, one set of journals,or one geographic

MISQuarterlyVol.26 No. 2/June 2002 xv

Webster&Watson/Guest
Editorial

region.However,a commentwe receivefrequentlyfromreviewersis thatMISQReviewsubmissions focus

solely on NorthAmericanor a small set of "top"publications.As one reviewertellinglynoted:

Studies of the IS literaturehave consistently been limitedby drawingfrom a small

sample of journals. Even thoughthe [ones] investigatedhere may have reputationsas
our top journals, that does not excuse an author from investigating "all"published
articles in a field..../ just can't see the justificationfor searching by journal instead of
searching by topic across all relevantjournals.

We recommenda structuredapproachto determinethe source materialfor the review:

(1) The majorcontributionsare likelyto be in the leadingjournals.Itmakes sense, therefore,to startwith

them. Whilejournaldatabases likeABI/Inform (ProQuest)accelerate identificationof relevantarticles,
scanning a journal'stable of contents is a useful way to pinpointothers not caught by your keyword
sieve. You should also examine selected conference proceedings, especially those witha reputation
for quality.

fieldstraddlingotherdisciplines,you often must look not onlywithin

Because IS is an interdisciplinary
the IS discipline when reviewingand developing theory but also outside the field. Malone and
Crowston(1994) providean excellent example of reviewingliteraturein relatedareas like computer
science, economics, operations research, organizationtheory, and biology. Robey et al. (2000)
present another admirableexample of reviewingtwo major streams of research to informtheir
research topic.

(2) Go backwardby reviewingthe citationsfor the articles identifiedin step 1 to determinepriorarticles

you should consider.

(3) Go forwardby using the Web of Science3 (the electronicversionof the Social Sciences CitationIndex)
to identifyarticles citingthe key articles identifiedin the previous steps. Determinewhich of these
articlesshould be includedin the review.

A systematic search shouldensure thatyou accumulatea relativelycompletecensus of relevantliterature.

You can gauge that your review is nearing completionwhen you are not findingnew concepts in your
articleset. Ofcourse, you willmiss some articles.Ifthese are criticalto the review,however,they are likely
to be identifiedby colleagues who read yourpaper either priorto or afteryoursubmission.

Structuring the Review

A literaturereviewis concept-centric.Thus, concepts determinethe organizingframeworkof a review. In
contrast,some authorstake an author-centricapproachand essentially presenta summaryof the relevant
articles. This method fails to synthesize the literature.The two approaches are easily recognized, as
illustratedin Table 1.

3http://www.webofscience
.com/

xvi Vol.26 No.2/June2002

MISQuarterly
 Webster& Watson/GuestEditorial

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

Articles Concepts
A B C D
1 K K K
2 K
I I K K

Articles Concepts
A B C D
Unitof
analysis O G I O G I O G I 0 G I O G
1 X X X
2 X X X X

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

To make the transitionfromauthor-to concept-centric,we recommendthat you compile a concept matrix

as you read each article(Table 2), an idea we have adapted from Salipante et al. (1982). When your
readingis complete, synthesize the literatureby discussing each identifiedconcept. Before commencing
this step, take some time to develop a logicalapproachto groupingand presentingthe key concepts you
have uncovered.

You mightneed to add a furtherdimensionto the concept matrixto handlethe unitof analysis (Table3).
Forexample, Te'eni(2002) foundthatthe concept "communication strategy"had differentmeaningswhen
considered fromthe organizational,group, individual,and cognitive utterancelevels. Isolatingconcepts
by unitof analysis should resultin a crisperreview because it is easier to detect when you let a concept
stray outside the scope of its domain.

MISQuarterlyVol.26 No. 2/June 2002 xvii

Webster& Watson/GuestEditorial

Tables and figurescan be an effectivemeans of communicatingmajorfindingsand 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 variablesexamined, level of analysis, gaps
in the literature,or other importanttheoreticalissues.

Forinstance, DeLoneand McLean(1992) includea set of tables summarizingthe literatureon IS success

by level of analysis, type of study, and success measures. As anotherexample, Bem (1995) describes a
review in which past research is categorized by whether the studies support one of three competing
models-by doing so, the authors are able to discover a recognizable patternsupportingone of the
models. Alaviand Leidner's(2001) table of knowledgetaxonomiesmakes iteasy forthe readerto quickly
determinethe meaningof a particularknowledgetype, which is especially useful in a long article.Finally,
the six figures and 13 tables in Te'eni's (2001) review articlehelp to communicatehis message more
clearly.

A reviewsucceeds when it helps otherscholars to make sense of the accumulatedknowledgeon a topic.

We believe thatsense-making is enhanced when a reviewis logicallystructuredaroundthe topic's central
ideas and makes good use of tables and figuresto convey economicallythe keyfindingsand relationships.

Tone
A successful literaturereviewconstructivelyinformsthe readeraboutwhat has been learned. Incontrast
to specific and criticalreviews of individualpapers, tell the readerwhat patternsyou are seeing in the
literature.Do not fall intothe trapof being overlycritical,as Daft(1985, p. 198) argued when describing
why he rejected some journalsubmissions:

...another indicatorof amateurismwas an overly negative approachto the previous

literature....Previousworkis always vulnerable.Criticizingis easy, and of littlevalue; it
is more importantto explainhow research buildsupon previousfindingsratherthan to
claim previousresearch is inadequateand incompetent.

Respect the workof those who laboredto create the foundationforyourcurrentworkby keeping in mind
that all research is flawed (McGrath1982). Of course, you cannot cite others' workblindly-sometimes
research is poorlydesigned and conducted, and you willneed to make harddecisions about whetherto
include this work in your review or to downplay its significance. Further,if a research stream has a
common"error" that must be rectifiedinfutureresearch, you willneed to pointthis out in orderto move the
field forward. Ingeneral, though, be faulttolerant. Recognize that knowledgeis accumulatedslowlyin a
piecemeal fashion and thatwe all make compromises in our research, even when writinga reviewarticle.

Tense

Opinionis variedon whetherwhen writingabout priorresearch you should mainlyuse the present or past
tense. When eithertense can communicateequallyeffectively,we opt forthe presentforseveral reasons.
First,itgives the readera greatersense of immediacy.Second, when discussing concepts, and in linewith
our concept-centricapproachto literaturereviews, it is logicalto use the present tense because concepts
are always here and now.Third,the presenttense is terserand thus fasterforthe readerto process. There
is an exception to this recommendation.An author'sopinionscan change withtime. When attributinga
statement or idea to a person, therefore,use the past tense: "MaxWeber may no longer be saying what
he once said"(Starbuck1999).

xviii MISQuarterlyVol.26 No. 2/June 2002

 Webster& Watson/GuestEditorial

Theoretical Development in YourArticle

A reviewshould identifycriticalknowledgegaps and thus motivateresearchers to close this breach. That

is, writinga reviewnot only requiresan examinationof past research, but means makinga chartforfuture
research. Forexample, the MISQReview articlesby Alaviand Leidner(2001) and Te'eni (2001) pinpoint
questions for futureinquiry.

Highlightingthe discrepancybetween what we knowand what we need to knowalerts other scholars to

opportunitiesfor a key contribution.Usually,this roadmapis accomplished by developing a conceptual
model withsupportingpropositions.Inthis paper,we focus on this traditionalapproach.However,there
are othermeans of makinga significantcontribution(Whetten1989). Forinstance, showinghowcompeting
theories or philosophicalassumptions explain an importantphenomenon can be very influential(e.g.,
Allison's[1969] analysis of the Cuban missile crisis).

Extendingcurrenttheories or developing new theories willcreate directionsforfutureresearch. However,

extendingor developingtheories is a difficulttask and is often the weakest partof a review.Nonetheless,
it is the most importantpartof a reviewand generallyneeds the most elaboration.Here,we providesome
recommendationsfor researchers who wish to develop a model and justifyits propositions.

Conceptualmodels are generallyderivedfromvariance (factor)or process theories (Markusand Robey

1988; Mohr1982). Variancetheories incorporateindependentvariablesthat cause variationindependent
variables.Incontrast,process theories use events and states to help explaindynamicphenomena.Thus,
models may look very differentin the two approaches (see Figure 1 of Langley[1999] for examples of
these twotypes of models). Of course, reviewarticlesmay drawfrombothvarianceand process research
to develop conceptualmodels to guide futureresearch. Infact, DiMaggio(1995, p. 392) arguedthat"many
of the best theories are hybrids,combiningthe best qualities"of these approaches. Moreover,Sabherwal
and Robey (1995) demonstratehowthe two approachescan be reconciledin one study.Thus, do nottreat
the results of variance and process research as independentelements of a review. Rather,make every
effortto show how these two approaches reveal a deeper understandingof the topic. Forexample, the
explanatorypower of a process model mightbe contingenton the strength of a particularvariable,as
Newman and Sabherwal(1991) illustrate.

Models and propositionscapture relationshipsbetween variables, but do not, on their own, represent
theory (Sutton and Staw 1995). For example, Griffith's(1999) proposition la (p. 480) states that,
"New/adaptedconcrete features are more likelyto be experienced as novel than new/adaptedabstract
features." Rather,the reasoning or justificationfor these relationshipsrepresents the crucialpartof the
theory-developmentprocess.

The reasoningforpropositionsmaycome fromthree mainsources: theoreticalexplanationsfor"why," past

empiricalfindings,and practiceor experience. The whyor logicalreasoning is the most importantcompo-
nent of the explanation. Itmust always be partof any justification.Itrepresents "thetheoreticalglue that
welds the model together"(Whetten 1989, p. 491). Past empiricalresearch also should be included if it
exists. If it does not exist in the specific area of interest, however, empiricalresearch in related areas
should be presented as (weaker)support(Gayand Diehl1992). Experience,if available,can also help to
justifya proposition;itmayarise fromthe author'sown experiences ininteractingwithorganizationsorfrom
the practiceliterature.Nonetheless, while past findingsand experience can help to supporta proposition,
keep in mindthat they are not a substitutefor logical reasoning (Suttonand Staw 1995).

As justifyingpropositionsoften represents one of the most challengingaspects of a reviewpaper, let us

look at several examples. First,ifwe examine Griffith'sresearch concerningtechnologyfeatures, we see

MISQuarterlyVol.26 No. 2/June 2002 xix

Webster& Watson/GuestEditorial

that she draws on each of the three types of justificationsources at varioustimes. For example, for one
proposition,she providesa theoreticalexplanation(concerningverification)and gives an example from
practice (Lotus Notes). For anotherproposition,she draws on past empiricalresearch in a related area
(concerningrewardsystems) and providesan example fromher own experience (at several automobile
assembly plants).

As anotherexample, examine Moormanand Miner's(1998) paperon organizationalmemory.Manyof the

propositionsuse all three types of justificationsources. For example, to justifya propositionconcerning
proceduralmemoryand speed, the authorsfirstdrawon theoryaboutthe automaticqualityof procedural
memory(fromcognition),then reporton empiricalsupportfroma relatedarea (teachers),and end withan
example frompractice(improvisationduringwar).

Evaluating Your Theory

Once you have developed yourtheory(such as model, propositions,and justifications),how do you know
if it is good? This evaluationis difficultand nebulous.

Writersargue thatgood theories should be memorableand provideanswers to why.They should explain,

predict, and delight (Weick 1995). Others propose that they should be interesting(Davis 1971) yet
parsimonious,falsifiable,and useful(Suttonand Staw 1995). Some arguethattheoriesshouldbe builtfrom
multipleparadigms(metatriangulation). Thus, they should exhibitcreativity,relevance, and comprehen-
siveness (Lewisand Grimes 1999, p. 685).

Reviewers are lookingfor good theories, but there is no cookbook approachto accomplishingthis. One
importantway to assist you in this evaluationprocess is to have colleagues read and comment on your
workbefore submittingit for review (Bem 1995). As Daft(1985, p. 207) observed:

Witheach revision,the paper ripens. Expose yourpaper to the fresh airand sunshine
of collegialfeedback. Witheach discussion, new ideas emerge. The ripeningprocess
is facilitatedwithhardworkand frequentrevisions.

Creating Your Discussion and Conclusions

Some reviews end abruptlywith a short conclusion. However, even though you have completed the
majorityof yourreviewpaper at this point,you can stilltell yourcolleagues more. Forinstance, 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 empiricallyexamined, and to draw
implicationsfor practiceand futuretheorizing(pp. 484-486).

The Reviewing and Revision Process

A reviewpaperembodies the "stateof the field."As such, it represents a benchmarkforothers conducting
futureresearch in your area. You should reap the benefits of citationsto your articlefor years to come
because yourworkshould hew a pathfor others. Because of the value and importanceof a high-quality
reviewfor the field, the firstchoices for reviewersare currentMISQuarterlyAssociate Editors.We also

xx MISQuarterlyVol.26 No. 2/June 2002

 Webster& Watson/GuestEditorial

contact senior experts conductingresearch on the particulartopicof the review.Thus, reviews are written
by well-qualified,accomplished scholars. The benefit is that you willreceive a detailed, developmental
review.The downside is that these reviewerswill recognize many opportunitiesfor you to improvethe
qualityof yourwork. As a result,the revisionwilltake more effortthan the revisionfor a regulararticle.

Whatconcerns have reviewersgenerallypointedout intheircommentson MISQReview papers? "What's

new?"always seems to be highlightedby reviewers, and earlierwe listed ways of demonstratingthe
contributionsof yourpaper.However,reviewersare lookingfornotone, buta combinationof contributions.
Saying that "ithasn'tbeen done before"on its own willnot convince yourreviewers. Moregenerally,and
consistentwithWhetten's(1989) most-frequentlyoccurringtypes of reviewerconcerns,we have foundthat
reviewers are looking for contribution("what'snew?"), impact ("so what?"), logic ("whyso?"), and
thoroughness("welldone?"). Youwillbe well on yourway to a publishablepaperifyou can address these
fourmajorconcerns when firstsubmittingyour paper.

Respondingto the reviewers'concerns differsfroma traditionalresearch paperintwo majoraspects. First,

the revisionprocess is generally longer because it takes time to reread and reinterpretthe literatureon
whichyourarticleis based. You also willneed to read and integratearticlessuggested by the reviewers.
Second, because a revisionto a long paper can involvemanychanges, it is helpfulto develop a planfor
the review and share it with the editor and reviewers.A plan clarifies how you will handle the possibly
disparaterecommendationsof reviewers.Ifthe reviewersdisagree on how you willreconciletheiradvice,
then considerabletime and anguish is saved ifthis divergenceof views is sorted out beforeyou launchon
a majorrevision.MISQReview does not requireauthorsto submita plan priorto revision,butwe certainly
urge you to consider this option.

Summary
An ideal article:

* motivatesthe research topic and explainsthe review'scontributions

* describes the key concepts
* delineates the boundariesof the research
* reviews relevantpriorliteraturein IS and relatedareas
* develops a model to guide futureresearch
* justifies propositionsby presenting theoreticalexplanations, past empiricalfindings, and practical
examples
* presents concludingimplicationsfor researchers and managers.

And on top of this, the exemplaryreviewarticleshould be explanatoryand creative!

MISQReview articles are significantlylonger than regularMIS Quarterlyarticles, so authors have the
space to develop such an ideal article.Nevertheless, this task is not straightforward.
We challenge you
to craftsuch contributionsfor MISQReview to move the field forward. LikeSutton and Staw's (1995, p.
380) conclusion about organizationalresearch, we believe that

Withoutconstant pressure for theorybuilding,the fieldwould surely slide to its natural

resting place in dust-bowlempiricism.

MISQuarterlyVol.26 No. 2/June 2002 xxi

Webster&Watson/Guest
Editorial

Acknowledgments
We thank BrentGallupe,TerriGriffith,DorothyLeidner,Ji-Ye Mao, Shan LingPan, Dan Robey, Mikko
Siponen, and DovTe'enifortheircommentson an earlierdraftof this paper.Theirinsightsand experiences
added considerable valuable.

References

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

ConceptualFoundationsand Research Issues," MISQuarterly(25:1), March2001, pp. 107-136.
Allison,G. T. "ConceptualModelsand the CubanMissileCrisis,"TheAmericanPoliticalScience Review
(63:3), 1969, pp. 689-718.
Bacharach, S. B. "Organizational Theories: Some Criteriafor Evaluation,"Academy of Management
Review (14:4) 1989, pp 496-515.
Bem, D. J. "Writinga ReviewArticlefor PsychologicalBulletin,"PsychologicalBulletin(118:2), 1995, pp.
172-177.
Daft,R. L. "WhyI RecommendedThatYourManuscriptBe Rejected and WhatYou Can Do AboutIt,"in
Publishingin the OrganizationalSciences, L. L. Cummingsand P. J. Frost(eds.), Irwin,Homewood,
IL,1985, pp. 193-209.
Davis, M.S. "That'sInteresting!," Philosophyof Social Science (1), 1971, pp. 309-344.
DeLone, W. H., and McLean, E. R. "Information Systems Success: The Quest for the Dependent
Variable,"InformationSystems Research (3:1), 1992, pp. 60-95.
DiMaggio,P. J. "Commentson 'WhatTheoryIs Not',"AdministrativeScience Quarterly(40:3), 1995, pp.
391-397.
Gay, L. R., and Diehl, P. L. Research Methods for Business and Management,Macmillan,New York,
1992, pp. xxiv,679.
Griffith,T. L. "TechnologyFeatures as Triggersfor Sensemaking,"Academy of Management Review
(24:3), 1999, pp. 472-488.
livari,J., Hirschheim,R. A., and Klein,H. K. "AParadigmaticAnalysis ContrastingInformationSystems
DevelopmentApproachesand Methodologies,"InformationSystems Research (9:2), 1998, pp. 164-
193.
Langley,A. "StrategiesforTheorizingfromProcess Data,"Academyof ManagementReview (24:4), 1999,
pp. 691-710.
Lewis,M.W., and Grimes,A. J. "Metatriangulations: BuildingTheoryfromMultipleParadigms,"Academy
of ManagementReview (24:4), 1999, pp. 672-690.
Malone,T. W., and Crowston,K. "TheInterdisciplinary Studyof Coordination," ACMComputingSurveys
(26:1), 1994, pp. 87-119.
Markus,M.L., and Robey, D. "Information Technologyand OrganizationalChange: Causal Structurein
Theory and Research,"ManagementScience (34:5), 1988, pp. 583-598.
McGrath,J. E. "Dilemmatics:The Study of Research Choices and Dilemmas,"in Judgment Calls in
Research, J. E. McGrath,J. Martin,and R. A. Kulka(eds.), Sage, BeverlyHills,CA, 1982, pp. 69-102.
Mohr,L. B. ExplainingOrganizationalBehavior(1st'ed.), Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, 1982, pp. xv, 260.
Moorman,C., and Miner,A. S. "Organizational Improvisationand OrganizationalMemory,"Academy of
ManagementReview (23:4), 1998, pp. 698-723.
Newman,M.,and Sabherwal,R. "Information Systems Development: FourProcess Scenarios withCase
Studies,"Journalof InformationSystems (5:1), 1991.
Parsons, T., and Shils, E. A. Towarda General Theoryof Action,Harper& Row, New York,1962.

xxii MISQuarterly
Vol.26 No.2/June2002
 Webster&Watson/Guest
Editorial

Robey, D., Boudreau,M.-C.,and Rose, G. M. "Information Technologyand OrganizationalLearning:A

Review and Assessment of Research," Accounting, Management,and InformationTechnologies
(10:2), 2000, pp. 125-155.
Sabherwal, R., and Robey, D. "ReconcilingVariance and Process Strategies for StudyingInformation
Systems Development,"InformationSystems Research (6:4), 1995, pp. 303-323.
Salipante, P., Notz, W., and Bigelow, J. "A MatrixApproach to LiteratureReviews,"in Research in
OrganizationalBehavior,B. M.Staw and L. L.Cummings(eds.), JAIPress, Greenwich,CT,1982, pp.
321-348.
Starbuck,W. H. "Fussy Professor Starbuck'sCookbook of Handy-DandyPrescriptionsfor Ambitious
Academic Authors,"1999, http://www.stern.nyu.edu/-wstarbuc/Writing/Fussy.htm (accessed March
30, 2002).
Sutton,R. I.,and Staw, B. M. "WhatTheoryIs Not,"AdministrativeScience Quarterly(40), 1995, pp. 371-
384.
Te'eni,D. "ACognitive-Affective Modelof OrganizationalCommunicationforDesigningIT,"MISQuarterly
(25:2), 2001, pp. 251-312.
Te'eni, D. Personal Communication,2002.
Webster, J. (in Lee, A. S.). "WhatWe Haven'tLearned,"MISQuarterly(25:4), 2001, pp. xii-xiii.
Weick, K. "Definition of 'Theory',"in BlackwellDictionaryof OrganizationalBehavior,N. Nicholson(ed.),
Blackwell,Oxford,1995.
Whetten, D. A. "WhatConstitutesa TheoreticalContribution?," Academyof ManagementReview (14:4),
1989, pp. 490-495.

About the Authors

Jane Webster is the currentsenior editor for MISQReview. She received her Ph.D. from New York
Universityand is a professor in the School of Business at Queen's Universityin Canada. Her research
interestscenter aroundelectronicmonitoring,organizationalcommunication,and computer-basedselec-
tion, training,and testing issues. She has published in a varietyof journals, includingMIS Quarterly,
Academy of ManagementJournal,CommunicationResearch, and OrganizationScience.

Richard Watson is the J. Rex FuquaDistinguishedChairfor InternetStrategyand Directorof the Center

for InformationSystems Leadershipin the TerryCollege of Business, the Universityof Georgia. He has
publishedin leadingjournalsin several fields as well as authoredbooks on data managementand elec-
troniccommerce and given invitedseminars in nearly20 countries.He is VP of Communicationsof AIS.
He was a senior editorof MISQuarterlywith responsibilityfor MISQReview. He is a visitingprofessorat
Agder UniversityCollege, Norway,and a consultingeditorto John Wiley& Sons.

MISQuarterly
Vol.26 No.2/June2002 xxiii