Sebastian K. Boell

On Being ‘Systematic’ in Literature Reviews in IS

General guidelines for conducting literature reviews often do not address the question of literature searches and dealing with a potentially large number of identified sources. These issues are specifically addressed by so-called systematic literature reviews (SLRs) that propose a strict protocol for the search and appraisal of literature. Moreover, SLRs are claimed to be a ‘standardized method’ for literature reviews that is replicable, transparent, objective, unbiased and rigorous, and thus superior to other approaches for conducting literature reviews. These are significant and consequential claims that – despite increasing adoption of SLRs – remained largely unnoticed in the information systems (IS) literature. The objective of this debate is to draw attention of the IS community to SLR’s claims, to question their justification and reveal potential risks of their adoption. This is achieved by first examining the origins of SLR and the prescribed SLR process and then by critically assessing their claims and implications. In this debate, we show that SLRs are applicable and useful for a very specific kind of literature review, a meta study that identifies and summarizes evidence from earlier research. We also demonstrate that the claims that SLRs provide superior quality are not justified. More importantly, we argue that SLR as a general approach to conducting literature reviews is highly questionable, concealing significant perils. The paper cautions that SLR could undermine critical engagement with literature and what it means to be scholarly in academic work.

Literature Reviews and the Hermeneutic Circle

Conducting a literature review is a vital part of any research. Library and information science (LIS) professionals often play a central role in supporting academics in their efforts to locate relevant publications and in teaching novice researchers skills associated with literature reviews. This paper examines literature review processes with the aim of contributing to a better understanding of their complexity and uncertainty and to propose a new approach to literature reviews: one capable of dealing with such complexity and uncertainty.

What is an Information System

This paper aims to advance understanding of information systems (IS) through a critical reflection on how IS are currently defined in the IS literature. Using the hermeneutic approach for conducting literature reviews the paper identifies 34 definitions of IS in the literature. Based on the analysis of these 34 definitions four different views of IS are distinguished: a technology view emphasizing the technological aspects of IS, a social view emphasizing the socio cultural aspects, a socio-technical view emphasizing the interconnection of technology and social elements, and a process view emphasizing the activity orientation of IS. The paper critically examines the contributions and limitations of these different approaches for understanding and theorizing IS. Based on this examination the paper argues to for the need to develop an additional, alternative sociomaterial conceptualization of IS based on a non-dualist, relational ontology.

Publications of Australian LIS academics in databases

This paper examines aspects of journal articles published from 1967 to 2008, located in eight databases, and authored or co-authored by academics serving for at least two years in Australian LIS programs from 1959 to 2008. These aspects are: inclusion of publications in databases, publications in journals, authorship characteristics of publications, productivity, and subject content of publications over time. Results indicate that national and LIS-specific databases provided adequate coverage; however, no single database provided over half of all publications. More than half of all articles were published in national journals focusing on aspects of LIS in Australia; however, there is a trend for increasing publications in international journals. Most of the earlier publications had one author, but multiple authorship in publications has increased since 1999. Overall the number of publications per LIS academic is low; however, per capita productivity has been increasing since the mid-1990s. Finally, titles of articles reveal a shift from library-related terms to information-related terms.

Information: Fundamental positions and their implications for information systems research, education and practice

Abstract Information is an important concept for the “information age”, the “information society” and the discipline of Information Systems (IS). However, different conceptions of information often make incommensurable assumptions about what information is. This essay introduces a ‘consequential framework’ revealing different assumptions made about the nature of information and the consequences following from these assumptions. According to this consequential framework four stances on the existence of information can be distinguished: (1) A first stance assumes information to exist independently of humans as part of the physical world, for instance, in the structure of the universe or the transmission of signals; (2) a second stance assumes that information exists in signs but in a observer independent way, such as in objective facts about things; (3) a third stance assumes that information exists only in relation to a subject, so that the same document, report or data will convey different information to different individuals; (4) a fourth stance assumes information to exist within a sociocultural setting, as lawyers, doctors or accountants differ in what is information to them. Each of these four stances makes vastly different assumptions about how information can be accessed and used by humans. This has further consequences for how information can be researched and how related concepts, such as data, signs, technology, or social context can be related to the study of information. The consequential framework introduced offers conceptual clarity regarding a central but largely ignored concept for IS and its reference disciplines.

On being ‘systematic’ in literature reviews

General guidelines for conducting literature reviews often do not address the question of literature searches and dealing with a potentially large number of identified sources. These issues are specifically addressed by so-called systematic literature reviews (SLR) that propose a strict protocol for the search and appraisal of literature. Moreover, SLR are claimed to be a ‘standardized method’ for literature reviews, that is, replicable, transparent, objective, unbiased, and rigorous, and thus superior to other approaches for conducting literature reviews. These are significant and consequential claims that — 2014; despite increasing adoption of SLR — 2014; remained largely unnoticed in the information systems (IS) literature. The objective of this debate is to draw attention of the IS community to SLR’s claims, to question their justification and reveal potential risks of their adoption. This is achieved by first examining the origins of SLR and the prescribed systematic literature review process and then by critically assessing their claims and implications. In this debate, we show that SLR are applicable and useful for a very specific kind of literature review, a meta study that identifies and summarizes evidence from earlier research. We also demonstrate that the claims that SLR provide superior quality are not justified. More importantly, we argue that SLR as a general approach to conducting literature reviews is highly questionable, concealing significant perils. The paper cautions that SLR could undermine critical engagement with literature and what it means to be scholarly in academic work.

Theorizing Society and Technology in Information Systems Research

The world around us is unpredictably changing at a dramatic pace and technology plays an increasingly important, yet ambiguous, role in these global social changes. Is should actively engage with the phenomena that society is changing with and through ICT. To date IS research is mostly interested in technological artifacts and behavioral aspects associated with ICT. We, as IS scholars, have to find theoretical approaches to help us to make sense of and better understand the broader societal and organizational changes related to ICT. We argue that Ou Yang outlines two relational approaches to sensemaking, extending our conceptual and analytical toolkits through the works of Martin Heidegger and Marshall McLuhan. This paper provides a discussion of her contribution in relation to the current debate on sociomateriality.

Usage of different Web Impact Factors for Ranking Australian Universities

This study describes how search engines (SE) can be employed for automated, efficient data gathering for Webometric studies using well defined query specfic URLs in SE (predictable URLs). It then compares the usage of staff-related Web Impact Factors (WIFs) to web impact factors for a ranking of Australian universities, showing that rankings based on staff-related WIFs correlate much better with an established ranking from the Melbourne Institute than commonly used WIFs. In fact WIFs do not correlate with the Melbourne ranking at all. It also compares WIF data for Australian Universities provided by Smith [1] for a longitudinal comparison of the WIF of Australian Universities over the last decade. It shows that size-dependent WIF values declined for most Australian universities over the last ten years, while staff- dependent WIFs shows a riding trend.

Enactment or Performance? A Non-dualist Reading of Goffman

This paper contributes to the sociomateriality research orientation with a critical examination of two concepts – enactment and performance – that have been associated with the notion of performativity. While a preference for the term enactment has been expressed in influential IS literature, we argue that sociomateriality will benefit from an engagement with the body of research that focuses on Goffman’s notion of performance. We provide a critique of Mol’s reading of Goffman’s notions of “persona” and “mask”. We then show how a careful non-dualist reading of his work reveals his opus as relevant and useful for sociomateriality, because his notion of performance affords locating technology in differing roles within a performance. In doing so, we argue that Goffman’s work, largely overlooked within this stream of research so far, contributes important concepts and terminology for making sociomateriality actionable for IS.