解读文献综述中的概念跳跃过程

IF 8.7 2区 管理学 Q1 COMPUTER SCIENCE, INFORMATION SYSTEMS Journal of Strategic Information Systems Pub Date : 2024-02-19 DOI:10.1016/j.jsis.2024.101822
Suzanne Rivard
{"title":"解读文献综述中的概念跳跃过程","authors":"Suzanne Rivard","doi":"10.1016/j.jsis.2024.101822","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Literature reviews serve diverse purposes, including description, understanding, explanation, and testing. Traditionally – before online databases, full-text search availability, and AI-based search tools – identifying relevant sources might have been considered a valuable contribution. However, top-tier information systems (IS) journals now demand more than descriptive reviews; they require authors to move beyond summarizing existing knowledge toward proposing innovative research directions, important research questions, new concepts, and interesting linkages among concepts. Despite adhering to rigorous methodological guidelines, many authors struggle to make conceptual leaps, that is, to elevate their literature reviews beyond description, to achieve a profound understanding, to provide explanations, or to develop a model. Authors may mistakenly prioritize hard work – like thorough literature search, analysis, and organization – over hard thinking, which is crucial for advancing theoretical contributions. With this in mind, I adopt the view that the literature is indeed qualitative data. I suggest that approaches that help make conceptual leaps in qualitative research can benefit literature review authors searching for inconsistencies in the extant literature and developing new questions, concepts, and linkages. Drawing upon qualitative research (Klag, M., and Langley, A., 2013. Approaching the conceptual leap in qualitative research. International Journal of Management Reviews. 15 (2), 149–166.), I unpack the process of conceptual leaping in the conduct of literature reviews. This process involves navigating dialectic tensions between <em>knowing</em> and <em>not knowing</em>, <em>engagement</em> and <em>detachment</em>, <em>deliberation</em> and <em>serendipity</em>, and <em>self-expression</em> and <em>social connection</em>. Effectively managing these tensions can help authors increase the impact and innovativeness of their literature reviews.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":50037,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Strategic Information Systems","volume":"33 1","pages":"Article 101822"},"PeriodicalIF":8.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0963868724000040/pdfft?md5=88dbfdddc538e298a77099b27b1656a7&pid=1-s2.0-S0963868724000040-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Unpacking the process of conceptual leaping in the conduct of literature reviews\",\"authors\":\"Suzanne Rivard\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jsis.2024.101822\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Literature reviews serve diverse purposes, including description, understanding, explanation, and testing. Traditionally – before online databases, full-text search availability, and AI-based search tools – identifying relevant sources might have been considered a valuable contribution. However, top-tier information systems (IS) journals now demand more than descriptive reviews; they require authors to move beyond summarizing existing knowledge toward proposing innovative research directions, important research questions, new concepts, and interesting linkages among concepts. Despite adhering to rigorous methodological guidelines, many authors struggle to make conceptual leaps, that is, to elevate their literature reviews beyond description, to achieve a profound understanding, to provide explanations, or to develop a model. Authors may mistakenly prioritize hard work – like thorough literature search, analysis, and organization – over hard thinking, which is crucial for advancing theoretical contributions. With this in mind, I adopt the view that the literature is indeed qualitative data. I suggest that approaches that help make conceptual leaps in qualitative research can benefit literature review authors searching for inconsistencies in the extant literature and developing new questions, concepts, and linkages. Drawing upon qualitative research (Klag, M., and Langley, A., 2013. Approaching the conceptual leap in qualitative research. International Journal of Management Reviews. 15 (2), 149–166.), I unpack the process of conceptual leaping in the conduct of literature reviews. This process involves navigating dialectic tensions between <em>knowing</em> and <em>not knowing</em>, <em>engagement</em> and <em>detachment</em>, <em>deliberation</em> and <em>serendipity</em>, and <em>self-expression</em> and <em>social connection</em>. Effectively managing these tensions can help authors increase the impact and innovativeness of their literature reviews.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50037,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Strategic Information Systems\",\"volume\":\"33 1\",\"pages\":\"Article 101822\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":8.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-02-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0963868724000040/pdfft?md5=88dbfdddc538e298a77099b27b1656a7&pid=1-s2.0-S0963868724000040-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Strategic Information Systems\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"91\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0963868724000040\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"管理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"COMPUTER SCIENCE, INFORMATION SYSTEMS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Strategic Information Systems","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0963868724000040","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"COMPUTER SCIENCE, INFORMATION SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

文献综述的目的多种多样,包括描述、理解、解释和测试。传统上,在在线数据库、全文检索可用性和基于人工智能的搜索工具出现之前,确定相关来源可能被认为是一项有价值的贡献。然而,顶级信息系统(IS)期刊现在要求的不仅仅是描述性评论;它们要求作者从总结现有知识转向提出创新研究方向、重要研究问题、新概念以及概念之间有趣的联系。尽管遵守了严格的方法论指导原则,但许多作者还是难以实现概念上的飞跃,也就是说,难以将文献综述提升到描述之外的高度,难以达到深刻的理解、提供解释或建立模型。作者可能会错误地将艰苦的工作--如彻底的文献检索、分析和组织--置于艰苦的思考之上,而后者对于推进理论贡献至关重要。有鉴于此,我采用的观点是,文献确实是定性数据。我认为,有助于在定性研究中实现概念飞跃的方法可以帮助文献综述作者寻找现有文献中的不一致之处,并提出新的问题、概念和联系。借鉴定性研究(Klag, M. and Langley, A., 2013.接近定性研究中的概念飞跃》。国际管理评论杂志》。15 (2),149-166.),我解读了文献综述中的概念跃迁过程。这一过程涉及驾驭知与不知、参与与脱离、深思熟虑与偶然性、自我表达与社会联系之间的辩证紧张关系。有效处理这些紧张关系有助于作者提高文献综述的影响力和创新性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Unpacking the process of conceptual leaping in the conduct of literature reviews

Literature reviews serve diverse purposes, including description, understanding, explanation, and testing. Traditionally – before online databases, full-text search availability, and AI-based search tools – identifying relevant sources might have been considered a valuable contribution. However, top-tier information systems (IS) journals now demand more than descriptive reviews; they require authors to move beyond summarizing existing knowledge toward proposing innovative research directions, important research questions, new concepts, and interesting linkages among concepts. Despite adhering to rigorous methodological guidelines, many authors struggle to make conceptual leaps, that is, to elevate their literature reviews beyond description, to achieve a profound understanding, to provide explanations, or to develop a model. Authors may mistakenly prioritize hard work – like thorough literature search, analysis, and organization – over hard thinking, which is crucial for advancing theoretical contributions. With this in mind, I adopt the view that the literature is indeed qualitative data. I suggest that approaches that help make conceptual leaps in qualitative research can benefit literature review authors searching for inconsistencies in the extant literature and developing new questions, concepts, and linkages. Drawing upon qualitative research (Klag, M., and Langley, A., 2013. Approaching the conceptual leap in qualitative research. International Journal of Management Reviews. 15 (2), 149–166.), I unpack the process of conceptual leaping in the conduct of literature reviews. This process involves navigating dialectic tensions between knowing and not knowing, engagement and detachment, deliberation and serendipity, and self-expression and social connection. Effectively managing these tensions can help authors increase the impact and innovativeness of their literature reviews.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Strategic Information Systems
Journal of Strategic Information Systems 工程技术-计算机:信息系统
CiteScore
17.40
自引率
4.30%
发文量
19
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Strategic Information Systems focuses on the strategic management, business and organizational issues associated with the introduction and utilization of information systems, and considers these issues in a global context. The emphasis is on the incorporation of IT into organizations'' strategic thinking, strategy alignment, organizational arrangements and management of change issues.
期刊最新文献
Do CEOs matter? Divergent impact of CEO power on digital and non-digital innovation A knowledge-centric model for government-orchestrated digital transformation among the microbusiness sector A process model for design-oriented machine learning research in information systems Is AI a strategic IS? Reflections and opportunities for research A socio-cognitive perspective of knowledge integration in digital innovation networks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1