update

.wordlist.txt

@@ -780,6 +780,4 @@ IDIS
 Erba
 Monréal
 Paré's
-Gioia’s
-Paré’s
 SearchQuery

docs/2025_IDIS.md

@@ -51,11 +51,11 @@ The Literature Review Seminar focuses on the method of conducting literature rev
 
 The first part focuses on the types and goals of literature reviews, emphasizing methodological pluralism and the diverse purposes that reviews serve in research. It introduces different forms of literature reviews, such as standalone review papers, background sections in empirical studies, funding proposals, and Ph.D. theses, with a particular focus on standalone reviews as independent contributions to knowledge synthesis. The session distinguishes review goals—describing, understanding, explaining, and theory testing (Rowe, 2014)—and aligns them with different review types as classified by Paré et al. (2015). These include narrative, scoping, systematic, meta-analytic, and hybrid reviews, each serving distinct research needs. To differentiate review approaches, the seminar introduces Cooper’s (1988) taxonomy of review dimensions, such as focus, goals, organization, perspective, and audience, helping participants critically assess how reviews vary in their methodology and intended contribution. The session encourages participants to engage with these distinctions through classification exercises, refining their understanding of how different review types align with specific research objectives.
 
-The second part focuses on the steps of the literature review process, emphasizing key methodological choices at each stage. It introduces different frameworks for structuring a review, including the hermeneutic approach (Boell & Cecez-Kecmanovic, 2014) and systematic guidelines (Okoli, 2015; Templier & Paré, 2018). The session outlines the generic steps of literature reviews, such as problem formulation, literature search, screening, quality assessment, data extraction, and data analysis, while highlighting that the sequence and nature of these steps vary depending on the review type. Participants explore different search strategies, including database searches, citation searches, and snowballing, and engage with search evaluation metrics (e.g., recall, precision). The seminar also covers screening protocols, inter-rater reliability, and reporting guidelines like PRISMA, providing a structured approach to selecting relevant literature. Finally, data analysis techniques, ranging from quantitative meta-analyses to qualitative coding approaches like Gioia’s method, are introduced to help synthesize findings. Through interactive exercises, participants critically evaluate search strategies and data extraction methods, refining their ability to conduct systematic and transparent literature reviews.
+The second part focuses on the steps of the literature review process, emphasizing key methodological choices at each stage. It introduces different frameworks for structuring a review, including the hermeneutic approach (Boell & Cecez-Kecmanovic, 2014) and systematic guidelines (Okoli, 2015; Templier & Paré, 2018). The session outlines the generic steps of literature reviews, such as problem formulation, literature search, screening, quality assessment, data extraction, and data analysis, while highlighting that the sequence and nature of these steps vary depending on the review type. Participants explore different search strategies, including database searches, citation searches, and snowballing, and engage with search evaluation metrics (e.g., recall, precision). The seminar also covers screening protocols, inter-rater reliability, and reporting guidelines like PRISMA, providing a structured approach to selecting relevant literature. Finally, data analysis techniques, ranging from quantitative meta-analyses to qualitative coding approaches like the Gioia method, are introduced to help synthesize findings. Through interactive exercises, participants critically evaluate search strategies and data extraction methods, refining their ability to conduct systematic and transparent literature reviews.
 
 ## Day 2: Qualities and Tools
 
-The third part explores the qualities of high-impact literature reviews, emphasizing key dimensions of quality and their relevance to different review types. The session begins with a warm-up exercise where participants identify essential factors for publishing in top-tier journals. Through exemplar studies and review panels, participants analyze and evaluate review papers, identifying strengths and weaknesses. Drawing on empirical findings from Wagner et al. (2021), the seminar highlights that methodological transparency and developing a research agenda significantly enhance a review’s scientific impact, while theoretical contributions remain difficult to measure systematically. The distinction between systematicity (sound execution) and transparency (explicit reporting) (Paré et al., 2016) is introduced alongside established reporting standards, such as the PRISMA checklist and Templier & Paré’s (2018) IS-specific guidelines. The session concludes with strategies for formulating a compelling research agenda, emphasizing how well-positioned, transparent, and forward-looking reviews contribute to knowledge development.
+The third part explores the qualities of high-impact literature reviews, emphasizing key dimensions of quality and their relevance to different review types. The session begins with a warm-up exercise where participants identify essential factors for publishing in top-tier journals. Through exemplar studies and review panels, participants analyze and evaluate review papers, identifying strengths and weaknesses. Drawing on empirical findings from Wagner et al. (2021), the seminar highlights that methodological transparency and developing a research agenda significantly enhance a review’s scientific impact, while theoretical contributions remain difficult to measure systematically. The distinction between systematicity (sound execution) and transparency (explicit reporting) (Paré et al., 2016) is introduced alongside established reporting standards, such as the PRISMA checklist and Templier & Paré's (2018) IS-specific guidelines. The session concludes with strategies for formulating a compelling research agenda, emphasizing how well-positioned, transparent, and forward-looking reviews contribute to knowledge development.
 
 The fourth part explores different tooling approaches for literature reviews, comparing self-managed setups (reference managers, Excel, specialized tools), platform-based solutions (Covidence, LitStudy, BUHOS), and open-synthesis platforms like CoLRev, which emphasize transparency and extensibility. A live demo of CoLRev introduces its role in automating key review steps. The session also examines the potential and limitations of AI and generative AI (LLMs) in literature reviews, highlighting their usefulness in query formulation and screening while cautioning against hallucinations and inconsistent recall. Discussions address how AI may reshape descriptive reviews while theory-building reviews remain human-driven. The seminar concludes with guidance on assembling an effective toolkit, balancing flexibility, collaboration, and tool compatibility, and encouraging open and AI-enhanced synthesis approaches.