Synthesizing information systems knowledge: A typology of literature reviews

By Guy Paré, Marie-Claude Trudel, Mirou Jaana, Spyros Kitsiou. Information Manager (The), 2015

1,758 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Management Information Systems, Sociology and Political Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/ecf816e021ad7322291b7633cddda9b40cb47e23

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Management Information Systems

In Sociology and Political Science

Citations in the corpus

Information technology and the search for organizational agility: A systematic review with future research possibilities (2019, background): “Systematic literature reviews help to draw attention to, and shape, those research questions (Paré et al., 2015; Webster and Watson, 2002).”
Why do people play games? A meta-analysis (2017, positive): “Instead, meta-analysis addresses the discrete limitations of individual studies and settles conflicting findings (Paré et al. 2015).”
Best-Practice Recommendations for Producers, Evaluators, and Users of Methodological Literature Reviews (2020, methodology): “Accordingly, as is common in conducting a critical review (Paré et al., 2015), our process is designed to include a broad and representative but not necessarily comprehensive set of articles.”
Engaging patients to improve quality of care: a systematic review (2018, methodology): “Our review did not fit into typologies of literature reviews [34, 35], given that we included qualitative and quantitative studies (to capture the breadth of studies in this area), employed a thematic analysis (given the multiplicity of designs), and applied a quality appraisal.”
Guidance on Conducting a Systematic Literature Review (2017, methodology): “Works are not aggregated or synthesized with respect to each other, but rather judged against this standard and found to be more or less acceptable (Grant and Booth 2009; Paré et al. 2015).”
The Future of Work in the ‘Sharing Economy’. Market Efficiency and Equitable Opportunities or Unfair Precarisation? (2016, neutral): “…a full systematic review is needed and over which topics (Grant & Booth, 2009, p. 101); they tend to privilege breadth and relevance over depth of coverage (Paré et al., 2015, p. 187), but they strive to be as comprehensive and transparent as the systematic reviews (Grant & Booth, 2009, p. 102).”
Systematicity in Organizational Research Literature Reviews: A Framework and Assessment (2021, background): “They seek to understand whether and how a body of literature reveals any interpretable patterns or trends concerning propositions, theories, methodologies, or findings (Paré et al., 2015).”
The Why and How of the Integrative Review (2020, background): “Adjudication is best suited to meta-analysis or systematic reviews because these approaches seek definitive answers about potential causal relationships based on objective and systematic standards (Paré et al., 2015) and thus provide high confidence in what the preponderance of the evidence says wit”
MTurk Research: Review and Recommendations (2020, methodology): “We began with a scoping substantive review (Paré, Trudel, Jaana, & Kitsiou, 2015) to capture the breadth of the literature regarding MTurk use.”
The impact of virtual, augmented and mixed reality technologies on the customer experience (2019, background): “Following Paré, Trudel, Jaana, and Kitsiou (2015), a critical review was conducted with the aim of critically analyzing previous studies that classified realities to reveal weaknesses, inconsistencies or contra-dictions.”
A Blockchain Research Framework (2017, methodology): “The protocol consisted of deﬁned sources of research to scan, means to access them, and basic criteria for inclusion and exclusion of single papers (Kitchenham and Charters 2007; Pare´ et al. 2015).”
The Passions and the Interests: Unpacking the 'Sharing Economy' (2016, background): “Recently two ‘reviews of reviews’ have conceptually mapped the field and, if used jointly, identified as many as 17 different review types (Grant & Booth, 2009; Paré et al., 2015).”
Drivers, barriers and social considerations for AI adoption in business and management: A tertiary study (2020, positive): “This type of review is also known as ‘umbrella study’, ‘overview of systematic reviews’, ‘systematic review of systematic reviews’ or ‘meta-review’ [25].”
The Research Audit Trail: Methodological Guidance for Application in Practice (2020, methodology): “…the literature review was conducted in accordance with key methodological guidance (e.g. Okoli, 2015; Brereton et al, 2017; Levy and Ellis, 2006; Pare et al, 2015; Vom Brocke et al, 2015; Carcary et al, 2018; Whittemore et al, 2014) in order to enable others to reproduce the study using the…”