Understanding the Elephant: The Discourse Approach to Boundary Identification and Corpus Construction for Theory Review Articles

The goal of a review article is to present the current state of knowledge in a research area. Two important initial steps in writing a review article are boundary identification (identifying a body of potentially relevant past research) and corpus construction (selecting research manuscripts to include in the review). We present a theory-as-discourse approach, which (1) creates a theory ecosystem of potentially relevant prior research using a citation-network approach to boundary identification; and (2) identifies manuscripts for consideration using machine learning or random selection. We demonstrate an instantiation of the theory as discourse approach through a proof-of-concept, which we call the automated detection of implicit theory (ADIT) technique. ADIT improves performance over the conventional approach as practiced in past technology acceptance model reviews (i.e., keyword search, sometimes manual citation chaining); it identifies a set of research manuscripts that is more comprehensive and at least as precise. Our analysis shows that the conventional approach failed to identify a majority of past research. Like the three blind men examining the elephant, the conventional approach distorts the totality of the phenomenon. ADIT also enables researchers to statistically estimate the number of relevant manuscripts that were excluded from the resulting review article, thus enabling an assessment of the review article’s representativeness.

[1]  Ana Ortiz de Guinea,et al.  What literature review type should I conduct , 2017 .

[2]  Maher M El-Masri,et al.  Non-probability sampling. , 2017, The Canadian nurse.

[3]  Carl T. Bergstrom,et al.  A Recommendation System Based on Hierarchical Clustering of an Article-Level Citation Network , 2016, IEEE Transactions on Big Data.

[4]  Kai R. Larsen,et al.  A Tool for Addressing Construct Identity in Literature Reviews and Meta-Analyses , 2016, MIS Q..

[5]  Michael A. McDaniel,et al.  The Validity of Conscientiousness Is Overestimated in the Prediction of Job Performance , 2015, PloS one.

[6]  Guy Paré,et al.  A Framework for Guiding and Evaluating Literature Reviews , 2015, Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[7]  Mike Chiasson,et al.  Avoiding methodological overdose: a declaration for independent ends , 2015, J. Inf. Technol..

[8]  Richard T. Watson,et al.  Beyond being systematic in literature reviews in IS , 2015, J. Inf. Technol..

[9]  Ulrike Schultze,et al.  Skirting SLR’s language trap: reframing the ‘systematic’ vs ‘traditional’ literature review opposition as a continuum , 2015, J. Inf. Technol..

[10]  Qing Ke,et al.  Defining and identifying Sleeping Beauties in science , 2015, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[11]  Alan R. Dennis,et al.  A Replication Manifesto , 2014, AIS Trans. Replication Res..

[12]  Björn Niehaves,et al.  Standing on the Shoulders of Giants: Challenges and Recommendations of Literature Search in Information Systems Research , 2015, Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[13]  Eunju Ko,et al.  Fashion Consumers' Acceptance of Retail Technology: A Meta-Analysis of Tam in Fashion Retail Context , 2015 .

[14]  Michael A. McDaniel,et al.  Publication bias: Understanding the myths concerning threats to the advancement of science. , 2015 .

[15]  Mary Tate,et al.  Introduction to the Special Issue: The Literature Review in Information Systems , 2015, Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[16]  Michael G. Aamodt Industrial/Organizational Psychology: An Applied Approach , 2010 .

[17]  Suzanne Rivard,et al.  Editor's comments: the ions of theory construction , 2014 .

[18]  Frantz Rowe,et al.  What literature review is not: diversity, boundaries and recommendations , 2014, Eur. J. Inf. Syst..

[19]  Sebastian K. Boell,et al.  A Hermeneutic Approach for Conducting Literature Reviews and Literature Searches , 2014, Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[20]  Martin Boeker,et al.  Google Scholar as replacement for systematic literature searches: good relative recall and precision are not enough , 2013, BMC Medical Research Methodology.

[21]  B. Mullen Advanced Basic Meta-analysis: Version 1.10 , 2013 .

[22]  Inder Singh Devendra Kumar Punia,et al.  THE EVOLUTION OF TECHNOLOGY ACCEPTANCE MODEL: A LITERATURE REVIEW , 2013 .

[23]  Carl T. Bergstrom,et al.  Author-level Eigenfactor metrics: Evaluating the influence of authors, institutions, and countries within the social science research network community , 2013, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[24]  Joseph Tan,et al.  Perceived Usefulness and Behavioral Intention to Use Consumer-Oriented Web-Based Health Tools: A Meta-Analysis , 2013, AMCIS.

[25]  Chitu Okoli,et al.  A Critical Realist Guide to Developing Theory with Systematic Literature Reviews , 2012 .

[26]  Michael A. McDaniel,et al.  Publication Bias in the Organizational Sciences , 2012 .

[27]  Ron Weber,et al.  Evaluating and Developing Theories in the Information Systems Discipline , 2012, J. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[28]  Qinghua Zhu,et al.  A meta-analysis of the impact of trust on technology acceptance model: Investigation of moderating influence of subject and context type , 2011, Int. J. Inf. Manag..

[29]  DongPing Tang,et al.  A review of the evolution of research on information Technology Acceptance Model , 2011, 2011 International Conference on Business Management and Electronic Information.

[30]  Chyan Yang,et al.  International Journal of Information Management the Intellectual Development of the Technology Acceptance Model: a Co-citation Analysis , 2022 .

[31]  Yogesh Kumar Dwivedi,et al.  Is UTAUT really used or just cited for the sake of it? a systematic review of citations of UTAUT's originating article , 2011, ECIS.

[32]  Jan Pries-Heje,et al.  Explanatory Design Theory , 2010, Bus. Inf. Syst. Eng..

[33]  Jay F. Nunamaker,et al.  Detecting Fake Websites: The Contribution of Statistical Learning Theory , 2010, MIS Q..

[34]  Pearl Brereton,et al.  Does the technology acceptance model predict actual use? A systematic literature review , 2010, Inf. Softw. Technol..

[35]  Richard J. Holden,et al.  The Technology Acceptance Model: Its past and its future in health care , 2010, J. Biomed. Informatics.

[36]  Ian H. Witten,et al.  The WEKA data mining software: an update , 2009, SKDD.

[37]  Yongsheng Jin,et al.  A Review of Technology Acceptance Model in the E-commerce Environment , 2009, 2009 International Conference on Management of e-Commerce and e-Government.

[38]  Robert P. Bostrom,et al.  A Meta-Theory for Understanding Information Systems Within Sociotechnical Systems , 2009, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[39]  Björn Niehaves,et al.  Reconstructing the giant: On the importance of rigour in documenting the literature search process , 2009, ECIS.

[40]  Albert L. Lederer,et al.  A Meta-Analysis of the Role of Environment-Based Voluntariness in Information Technology Acceptance , 2009, MIS Q..

[41]  Maria J Grant,et al.  A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. , 2009, Health information and libraries journal.

[42]  Mohammad Chuttur,et al.  Overview of the Technology Acceptance Model: Origins, Developments and Future Directions , 2009 .

[43]  Detmar W. Straub,et al.  Creating Blue Oceans of Thought Via Highly Citable Articles , 2009 .

[44]  Dirk S. Hovorka,et al.  Analyzing unstructured text data: Using latent categorization to identify intellectual communities in information systems , 2008, Decis. Support Syst..

[45]  Huaying Shu,et al.  Review of relationships among variables in TAM , 2008 .

[46]  Shumaila Y. Yousafzai,et al.  Technology acceptance: a meta‐analysis of the TAM: Part 2 , 2007 .

[47]  Gordon R. Foxall,et al.  Technology acceptance: a meta‐analysis of the TAM: Part 1 , 2007 .

[48]  Radford M. Neal Pattern Recognition and Machine Learning , 2007, Technometrics.

[49]  Wynne W. Chin,et al.  Understanding frameworks and reviews: a commentary to assist us in moving our field forward by analyzing our past , 2007, DATB.

[50]  Matthew S. Fritz,et al.  PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE Research Article Required Sample Size to Detect the Mediated Effect , 2022 .

[51]  Jiayin Qi,et al.  A Review on the Relationship Between New Variables and Classical TAM Structure , 2007, CONFENIS.

[52]  Martin Wetzels,et al.  A meta-analysis of the technology acceptance model: Investigating subjective norm and moderation effects , 2007, Inf. Manag..

[53]  Matthew R. Jones,et al.  Giddens's Structuration Theory and Information Systems Research , 2008, MIS Q..

[54]  William R. King,et al.  A meta-analysis of the technology acceptance model , 2006, Inf. Manag..

[55]  Shirley Gregor,et al.  The Nature of Theory in Information Systems , 2006, MIS Q..

[56]  Eytan Domany,et al.  On the Number of Samples Needed to Learn the Correct Structure of a Bayesian Network , 2006, UAI.

[57]  Jesse A. Berlin,et al.  Preventing Publication Bias: Registries and Prospective Meta‐Analysis , 2006 .

[58]  E. Garfield The history and meaning of the journal impact factor. , 2006, JAMA.

[59]  Weiguo Fan,et al.  Genetic Programming-Based Discovery of Ranking Functions for Effective Web Search , 2005, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[60]  C. McCulloch,et al.  Ethics and sample size. , 2005, American journal of epidemiology.

[61]  Qingxiong Ma,et al.  The Technology Acceptance Model: A Meta-Analysis of Empirical Findings , 2004, J. Organ. End User Comput..

[62]  Younghwa Lee,et al.  The Technology Acceptance Model: Past, Present, and Future , 2003, Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[63]  Gordon B. Davis,et al.  User Acceptance of Information Technology: Toward a Unified View , 2003, MIS Q..

[64]  Miguel P Caldas,et al.  Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches , 2003 .

[65]  Detmar W. Straub,et al.  Trust and TAM in Online Shopping: An Integrated Model , 2003, MIS Q..

[66]  E. Rogers,et al.  Diffusion of innovations , 1964, Encyclopedia of Sport Management.

[67]  John Ingham,et al.  Why do people use information technology? A critical review of the technology acceptance model , 2003, Inf. Manag..

[68]  Sayan Mukherjee,et al.  Estimating Dataset Size Requirements for Classifying DNA Microarray Data , 2003, J. Comput. Biol..

[69]  Venkataraman Ramesh,et al.  Research in Information Systems: An Empirical Study of Diversity in the Discipline and Its Journals , 2002, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[70]  Charles J. Kacmar,et al.  Developing and Validating Trust Measures for e-Commerce: An Integrative Typology , 2002, Inf. Syst. Res..

[71]  Richard T. Watson,et al.  Analyzing the Past to Prepare for the Future: Writing a Literature Review , 2002, MIS Q..

[72]  Pawel Wocjan,et al.  Required sample size for learning sparse Bayesian networks with many variables , 2002, ArXiv.

[73]  Alan R. Dennis,et al.  Understanding Fit and Appropriation Effects in Group Support Systems via Meta-Analysis , 2001, MIS Q..

[74]  Dorothy E. Leidner,et al.  Research Commentary: Technology-Mediated Learning - A Call for Greater Depth and Breadth of Research , 2001, Inf. Syst. Res..

[75]  Rajeev Sharma,et al.  An evaluation of a major validity threat to the technology acceptance model , 2001, ECIS.

[76]  Anandhi S. Bharadwaj,et al.  A Resource-Based Perspective on Information Technology Capability and Firm Performance: An Empirical Investigation , 2000, MIS Q..

[77]  Thomas H. Davenport,et al.  Book review:Working knowledge: How organizations manage what they know. Thomas H. Davenport and Laurence Prusak. Harvard Business School Press, 1998. $29.95US. ISBN 0‐87584‐655‐6 , 1998 .

[78]  James H. Martin,et al.  Speech and Language Processing: An Introduction to Natural Language Processing, Computational Linguistics, and Speech Recognition , 2000 .

[79]  Rajeev Motwani,et al.  The PageRank Citation Ranking : Bringing Order to the Web , 1999, WWW 1999.

[80]  Earl R. Babbie,et al.  The Basics Of Social Research , 1998 .

[81]  Sirkka L. Jarvenpaa,et al.  An Information Company in Mexico: Extending the Resource-Based View of the Firm to a Developing Country Context , 1998, Inf. Syst. Res..

[82]  K. Berger,et al.  The Developing Person Through Childhood and Adolescence , 1997 .

[83]  K. Weick What Theory Is Not, Theorizing Is , 1995 .

[84]  Deborah Compeau,et al.  Computer Self-Efficacy: Development of a Measure and Initial Test , 1995, MIS Q..

[85]  Gerardine DeSanctis,et al.  Capturing the Complexity in Advanced Technology Use: Adaptive Structuration Theory , 1994 .

[86]  Erik Brynjolfsson,et al.  The productivity paradox of information technology , 1993, CACM.

[87]  Lawrence D. Jackel,et al.  Learning Curves: Asymptotic Values and Rate of Convergence , 1993, NIPS.

[88]  Michael W. Kattan,et al.  A Comparison of Machine Learning with Human Judgment , 1993, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[89]  Ephraim R. McLean,et al.  Information Systems Success: The Quest for the Dependent Variable , 1992, Inf. Syst. Res..

[90]  I. Ajzen The theory of planned behavior , 1991 .

[91]  Eugene Charniak,et al.  Bayesian Networks without Tears , 1991, AI Mag..

[92]  Jürgen Habermas,et al.  Jürgen Habermas: Morality, Society and Ethics , 1990 .

[93]  A. J. Meadows Theory in information science , 1990, J. Inf. Sci..

[94]  Judea Pearl,et al.  Probabilistic reasoning in intelligent systems - networks of plausible inference , 1991, Morgan Kaufmann series in representation and reasoning.

[95]  Fred D. Davis Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology , 1989, MIS Q..

[96]  Fred D. Davis,et al.  User Acceptance of Computer Technology: A Comparison of Two Theoretical Models , 1989 .

[97]  J A Swets,et al.  Measuring the accuracy of diagnostic systems. , 1988, Science.

[98]  William J. Doll,et al.  The Measurement of End-User Computing Satisfaction , 1988, MIS Q..

[99]  D. G. Cramp,et al.  Computers and Control in Clinical Medicine , 1985 .

[100]  A. Kellerman,et al.  The Constitution of Society : Outline of the Theory of Structuration , 2015 .

[101]  R. Rosenthal Meta-analytic procedures for social research , 1984 .

[102]  David A. Landgrebe,et al.  Predicting the Required Number of Training Samples , 1983, IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence.

[103]  J. R. Landis,et al.  The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. , 1977, Biometrics.

[104]  Jacob Cohen A Coefficient of Agreement for Nominal Scales , 1960 .