Unpacking the process of conceptual leaping in the conduct of literature reviews

Abstract

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.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 13 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.