A Hermeneutic Approach for Conducting Literature Reviews and Literature Searches

Abstract

The quality and success of scholarly work depends in large measure on the quality of the literature review process. This paper advances conceptual understanding of the literature review process and extends earlier guidelines on literature reviews. It proposes a hermeneutic framework that integrates the analysis and interpretation of literature and the search for literature. This hermeneutic framework describes the literature review process as fundamentally a process of developing understanding that is iterative in nature. Using the hermeneutic circle it describes the literature review process as being constituted by literature searching, classifying and mapping, critical assessment, and argument development. The hermeneutic approach emphasizes continuous engagement with and gradual development of a body of literature during which increased understanding and insights are developed. The paper contributes to better understanding of the literature review process and provides guidelines to assist researchers in conducting high quality reviews. Approaches for efficient searching are included in an Appendix.

Debating Systematic Literature Reviews (SLR) and their Ramifications for IS: A rejoinder to Mike Chiasson, Briony Oates, Ulrike Schultze, and Richard Watson

“…We agree that narrative literature reviews could and should emphasize their systematic nature and clearly demonstrate in what ways both the process and its outcome are systematic (Hart, 1998;Webster and Watson, 2002). We recognize the need to advance not only a systematic way of searching the literature, but also improving systematic reading and investigation of identified sources, engagement with findings and classification of knowledge claims and contributions, using for instance thematic analysis (Bandara et al, 2011); grounded theory (Wolfswinkel et al, 2013); or a hermeneutic framework (Boell and Cecez-Kecmanovic, 2014). Furthermore, the development of an argument regarding the assessment of a body of knowledge relevant for an observed phenomenon has to be clearly systematic and logically derived from the analysis and classification of findings.…”

“…It is surprising that SLRs are not taking advantage of techniques such as successive fractions, building blocks or citation pearl grow (discussed in detail in appendix A by Boell and Cecez-Kecmanovic, 2014) for making the searching and identification of literature more efficient. This is probably because these techniques encourage the researcher to engage interactively with the literature during the search process, which is not allowed by the 'rigorous' and repeatable search procedure prescribed by SLR.…”

On being ‘Systematic’ in Literature Reviews in IS

“…To understand both the SLR approach and how it differs from traditional 'narrative' approaches, we examine the aims and underlying assumptions of both. Table 1 summarizes and compares key characteristics derived from the SLR literature (Knipschild, 1995;Atkins and Louw, 2000;Kitchenham, 2004;Kitchenham andCharters, 2007, Okoli andSchabram, 2010;Cruzes and Dybå, 2011) and those from a broad literature on literature reviews in IS and beyond (Hart, 1998;Webster and Watson, 2002;Finn, 2005;Levy and Ellis, 2006;Schwarz et al, 2007;Ridley, 2008;Feak and Swales, 2009;Machi and McEvoy, 2012;Bandara et al, 2011;Wolfswinkel et al, 2013;Boell and Cecez-Kecmanovic, 2014).…”

“…Various guidelines for literature reviews assist researchers in identifying, reading, analyzing, interpreting, mapping, classifying and critically assessing the literature and writing a literature review (Webster and Watson, 2002;Levy and Ellis, 2006;Wolfswinkel et al, 2013;Boell and Cecez-Kecmanovic, 2014) Purpose and aims SLRs seek to provide answers to specific questions such as 'what works' or 'what works best' (e.g., related to the use of a software, tool, method); 'how one variable is related to another' (e.g., the relation between 'ease of use' and 'intention to use technology'); or questions regarding a particular hypothesis (e.g., that a product/tool/technique has positive effects on productivity). SLR aims to provide evidence that answers such type of questions.…”

Skirting SLR's Language Trap: Reframing the ‘Systematic’ vs ‘Traditional’ Literature Review Opposition as a Continuum

“…By using this term to describe a literature review that followed Webster and Watson's (2002) guidelines, IS researchers such as Guillemette and Paré (2012) are effectively declaring that being systematic is not exclusive to SLRs. Hermeneutic (Boell and Cecez-Kecmanovic, 2014) and grounded (Wolfswinkel et al, 2013) literature reviews can be equally methodical, rigorous and comprehensive.…”