Webster & Watson/Guest Editorial 1 http://www.misq.org/misreview/announce.html MIS Quarterly Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. xiii-xxiii/June 2002 xiii ANALYZING THE PAST TO PREPARE FOR THE FUTURE: WRITING A LITERATURE REVIEW By: Jane Webster Queens School of Business Queens University Kingston, ON K7L 3N6 CANADA jwebster@business.queensu.ca Richard T. Watson Terry College of Business The University of Georgia Athens, GA 30602-6273 U.S.A. rwatson@terry.uga.edu A review of prior, relevant literature is an essential feature of any academic project. An effective review creates a firm foundation for advancing knowledge. It facilitates theory development, closes areas where a plethora of research exists, and uncovers areas where research is needed. In the information systems (IS) field, we see few published review articles. As a result, the progress of our field is impeded. To address this concern, the MIS Quarterly launched MISQ Review several years ago. The clear intention was to accelerate the accumulation of IS knowledge. A particular goal was to advance the state of theory within the IS field. The stated purpose of MISQ Review is to promote MIS research by publishing articles that conceptualize research areas and survey and synthesize prior research. These articles will provide important input in setting directions for future research.1 The lack of theoretical progress in the IS field may be surprising. From an empirical viewpoint, the IS field resembles other management fields. Specifically, as fields of inquiry develop, their theories are often placed on a hierarchy from ad hoc classification systems (in which categories are used to summarize empirical observations), to taxonomies (in which the relationships between the categories can be described), to conceptual frameworks (in which propositions summarize explanations and predictions), to theoretical systems (in which laws are contained within axiomatic or formal theories) (Parsons and Shils 1962). In its short history, IS research has developed from classification systems to conceptual frame- works. In the 1970s, it was considered pre-paradigmatic. Today, it is approaching the level of development in empirical research of other management fields, like organizational behavior (Webster 2001). However, unlike other fields that have journals devoted to review articles (e.g., the Academy of Management Review), we see few review articles in ISand hence the creation of MISQ Review as a device for accelerating development of the discipline. One reason we see so few theoretical articles in IS relates to the youth of the field. Another concerns the complexity of assembling a review in an interdisciplinary field. That is, constructing a review is a chal-

Webster & Watson/Guest Editorial 2While this article is centered around MISQ Review, we believe much of what we say has general value for most IS literature reviews. xiv MIS Quarterly Vol. 26 No. 2/June 2002 lenging process because we often need to draw on theories from a variety of fields. Moreover, we have so few theories of our own. Nevertheless, the literature review represents the foundation for research in IS. As such, review articles are critical to strengthening IS as a field of study. Another challenge relates to methods of structuring and presenting these reviews. As the initial senior editors for MISQ Review, we quickly learned that many IS scholars are not familiar with the structure and format of reviews, which provided the motivation for this article. Unfortunately, this finding is not uncommon in other areas, as has been noted: Authors of literature reviews are at risk for producing mind-numbing lists of citations and findings that resemble a phone bookimpressive case, lots of numbers, but not much plot. [In contrast] a coherent review emerges only from a coherent conceptual struc- turing of the topic itself. For most reviews, this requires a guiding theory, a set of competing models, or a point of view about the phenomenon under discussion [Bem 1995, p. 172]. Like Bem in psychology, we seek to encourage more conceptual structuring of reviews in IS. Drawing on our editorial experiences, 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 MISQ Review authors and IS scholars in general by setting forth some guidelines and thoughts on how to write a review article.2 In this paper, we first consider who should write for MISQ Review and identify the types of articles that are appropriate. Next, we spend most of the paper providing advice to would-be authors based on what we have learned from our experiences. We then discuss the reviewing process. Finally, we conclude by summarizing our expectations for a review article. Prospective Authors and Topics There are two points in a scholars life that lend themselves naturally to writing a literature review. First, those who have completed or made substantial progress on a stream of research are well positioned to tell their colleagues what they have learned and where the field can most fruitfully direct its attention. Second, scholars who have completed a literature review prior to embarking on a project and have developed some theoretical models derived from this review are also potential authors. From another angle, two types of reviews exist. First, authors could deal with a mature topic where an accumulated body of research exists that needs analysis and synthesis. In this case, they would conduct a thorough literature review and then propose a conceptual model that synthesizes and extends existing research. Second, authors could tackle an emerging issue that would benefit from exposure to potential theoretical foundations. Here, the review of current literature on the emerging topic would, of necessity, be shorter. The authors contribution would arise from the fresh theoretical foundations proposed in developing a conceptual model. Because literature reviews are more time-consuming and have fewer outlets than research articles, prospective authors should contact the current senior editor of MISQ Review prior to commencing. An