Epistemological Advances Through Qualitative Literature Reviews in Information Systems Research (EPIQUALIS)

通过信息系统研究中的定性文献综述取得认识论进展（EPIQUALIS）

• 批准号: 315925033
• 负责人: Professor Dr. Guido Schryen
• 金额: --
• 依托单位: Lehrstuhl für Wirtschaftsinformatik, insbesondere Operations Research
• 依托单位国家: 德国
• 项目类别: Research Grants
• 财政年份: 2016
• 资助国家: 德国
• 起止时间: 2015-12-31 至 2021-12-31
• 项目状态: 已结题
• 来源: https://gepris.dfg.de/gepris/projekt/315925033?language=en
• 关键词: Epistemological; Advances; Through; Qualitative; Literature

The qualitative literature review is an established research genre in many academic disciplines, including the information systems (IS) discipline. From an epistemological perspective, qualitative literature reviews can contribute to scientific progress in IS from both the cumulative and the revolutionary perspective and even provide the foundation for research in IS. IS authors have acknowledged the importance of literature reviews by publishing more than 173 qualitative IS literature reviews in the 39 top IS journals since 2000, and these literature reviews have been cited in more than 2,300 research papers published in these journals. The analysis of the IS literature shows that, despite the large bibliometric impact of literature reviews in terms of citations and the large potential of literature reviews, it is still unexplored whether and to what extent the IS discipline has exploited the potential of literature reviews to enhance knowledge through epistemological contributions, e.g., the synthesis of the body of knowledge, the identification of research gaps, or the proposition or test of new theories. Understanding this epistemological issue is important for the IS discipline for three reasons, to which the key objectives of the project are linked: (1) From an analytical perspective, it provides insights with regard to when and how IS literature reviews have (un)successfully contributed to epistemological enhancement. In particular, it allows the comparison of realized contributions with potential contributions as well as the identification of lessons learned. These lessons learned cover examples of how literature reviews have created knowledge (direct epistemological impact) and of how they have enabled other researchers to generate knowledge based on what the literature reviews have achieved (indirect epistemological impact). One objective of the research project is the identification of both the direct and indirect epistemological contributions of IS literature reviews (objective 1: epistemological enhancements through IS literature reviews). (2) From a prescriptive perspective, these lesson leaned can be used to derive recommendations for both i) authors of prospective IS literature reviews in order to increase their epistemological impact and the number of citations and ii) all IS researchers who want to exploit the epistemological advances of literature reviews in order to generate knowledge on their own. The provision of these recommendations is the second objective of the project (objective 2: epistemological guidelines for authors in the IS discipline). (3) From a philosophy of science perspective, no epistemological/knowledge-theoretical basis for the genre of literature reviews exists. A third objective of the project is to contribute to the development of such a theoretical foundation (objective 3: epistemological theory for IS literature reviews).

定性文献综述是许多学科中既定的研究类型，包括信息系统（IS）学科。从认识论的角度来看，定性文献综述可以从累积性和革命性的角度促进信息系统的科学进步，甚至为信息系统的研究提供基础。自 2000 年以来，IS 作者在 39 种顶级 IS 期刊上发表了超过 173 篇定性 IS 文献综述，认识到文献综述的重要性，这些文献综述已被这些期刊发表的 2,300 多篇研究论文引用。对IS文献的分析表明，尽管文献综述在引用方面具有巨大的文献计量影响以及文献综述的巨大潜力，但IS学科是否以及在多大程度上利用了文献综述的潜力，通过认识论贡献来增强知识，例如知识体系的综合、研究差距的识别或新理论的提出或检验，仍然有待探索。理解这一认识论问题对于 IS 学科非常重要，原因有以下三个：（1）从分析的角度来看，它提供了有关 IS 文献评论何时以及如何（不）成功地促进认识论增强的见解。特别是，它可以将已实现的贡献与潜在的贡献进行比较，并确定吸取的经验教训。这些经验教训涵盖了文献综述如何创造知识（直接认识论影响）以及它们如何使其他研究人员能够根据文献综述所取得的成果生成知识（间接认识论影响）的例子。该研究项目的目标之一是确定 IS 文献综述的直接和间接认识论贡献（目标 1：通过 IS 文献综述增强认识论）。 (2) 从规定的角度来看，这些经验教训可用于为 i) 前瞻性 IS 文献评论的作者提供建议，以增加其认识论影响和引用数量 ii) 所有希望利用文献评论认识论进步来自行生成知识的 IS 研究人员。提供这些建议是该项目的第二个目标（目标 2：信息系统学科作者的认识论指南）。 (3)从科学哲学的角度来看，文学评论这一类型不存在认识论/知识理论基础。该项目的第三个目标是为这种理论基础的发展做出贡献（目标 3：IS 文献综述的认识论理论）。