This review of the literature followed an iterative approach through the research cycles and reflected the general cyclical research method. Consequently, it is neither a systematic nor a structured literature review, as the strict guidelines for systematic and structured literature reviews were not pragmatic for this study. There are two primary reasons for this. First, the time required for the study and the lack of multiple reviewers. The length of time elapsed in a doctoral study and other multicycle studies requires multiple iterations, which are unlikely to consistently follow the precise requirements of a systematic literature review unless the literature review is done in its entirety at the beginning of the research. A literature review at the beginning of a study runs the risk of being outdated in multi-year research. This is made worse in action research studies, which may change focus as the research questions are revised (Dick, 2003). Although the potential for objectivity is more likely for positivist studies and during the proposal stage, it is questionable whether this still holds during the finalising of the thesis. Furthermore, multiple reviewers are a fundamental requirement for systematic literature reviews (Rowe, 2012). Rowe (2012) suggests that doctoral theses typically do not meet the requirements to make 'significant contributions to knowledge based on rigorous and deep literature reviews' (p.470). These concerns are shared by Okoli and Schabram (2010), who regard graduate thesis literature reviews as distinct from conventional literature reviews, let alone systematic literature reviews. They emphasise the student perspective in using literature reviews in doctoral theses as a basis for academic discussion built on summarising, analysing, and criticising key literature. A literature review reveals the synthesis of the student’s understanding of the subject matter, the rigour of the student’s approach, the justification for future research and introduces the student to academic practice and
31 protocols with the expectation of the student presenting themselves as experts in the field.
For the literature review to be reproducible, Kitchenham et al. (2009) require the application of structured principles; however, Boell and Cecez-Kecmanovic (2015) regard a systematic literature review as a step too far.
Defining literature reviews as a synthesis of existing knowledge to reveal current biases and knowledge gaps and propose future research, Rowe (2014) identifies three types of literature reviews: describing, understanding, and explaining. The three types are categorised according to a four-dimensional typology linked to time, as shown in Table 2.1.
Table 2.1 A four-dimensional typology for literature reviews (Rowe, 2014).
Dimension Type Description
1 Goal with respect to theory Describing (a-theoretically), understanding, or explaining
2 Breadth Problem, stream or theme, discipline
3 Systematicity Inclusion criteria (search process, type of source, period, discipline), coverage, quality assessment, sources description
4 Argumentative strategy 'Logical structures in the argumentation enacted in the paper'... 'the order of the components of the author's argument' (de Vaujany et al., 2011, p. 401)
The goal of literature reviews concerning theory is to describe or explain a problem, a theme, or a discipline. Rowe (2014) warns that literature reviews do not typically strive to contribute to theory building, ultimately one of a doctoral thesis's goals. The most relevant aspect of a doctoral literature review is systematicity that comprises 'Inclusion criteria (search process, type of source, period, discipline), coverage, quality assessment, source description' (p.243).
Argumentative strategy is less important in a doctoral study and is regulated by its research design and philosophical underpinning. To synthesise knowledge, knowledge must be defined.
This review of the literature was informed by the four-dimensional typology proposed by Rowe (2014) in terms of theory, breadth, systematicity, and argumentative strategy – and an iterative hermeneutic approach proposed by Boell and Cecez-Kecmanovic (2014) and
32 presented in Figure 2.1. The hermeneutic cycle was appropriate for multiple iterations over the extended period of a doctoral study.
Figure 2.1. A hermeneutic framework for the literature review (Boell & Cecez-Kecmanovic, 2014).
In hermeneutic literature reviews, a cyclical process is followed through two interconnected loops. In the first loop, the relevance of the potential literature is sought and assessed in the second loop. Common to all literature reviews is the trade-off between rigour and relevance.
Schön (1995) used the analogy of a cliff over a swamp to explain the difference between rigour and relevance. Rigour is less critical than relevance in the swamp, where there are messy problems. In contrast, the clarity of the high-ground cliff affords the ability to endure rigour at the cost of grassroots relevance. The practitioner or researcher must optimise where the best solution is found. The twin hermeneutic cycles allow for alternating between the high-ground rigour for searching and the low-ground relevance for assessment. An absolutist structure is evident in the rigorous first cycle, with literature either holding potential or not.
However, messy problems on the ground are contextual, and the literature requires a critical assessment as to their relevance to the problem.
33
• Goal with respect to theory
This literature review aimed to understand the prevailing knowledge of learning, reflection, and potential generative mechanisms that may improve learning outcomes.
• Breadth
The problem is the potential for improving learning through reflective practices in experiential learning projects to educate future business process practitioners in the information systems discipline.
• Systematicity
Systematicity is derived from the thesis's pragmatist aspect through a long-term intermittent hermeneutic cycle supported by an abductive approach. Pragmatism values consequences above processes as processes are regarded as part of an unfinished universe (Garrison, 1995, 2005). The significance of meaning, truth and value is thus entwined in outcomes. However, without a critical assessment of inputs and processes, the effectiveness of outcomes and consequences can be limited or even detrimental. As much as there is a possibility of benevolent beauty, there is an equal chance of vicious ugliness through dangerous dialogues (Garrison, 2005, p. 114). Consequently, reflection on the method of the literature review is essential and must be part of systematicity.
The iterative nature of the research cycles did not restrict the selection of the literature to specific processes, sources, periods, or quality assessment. However, general guidelines were followed. Most of the included literature originated with searches using scholar.google.com and the number of citations noted. Preference was given to journal articles and books before conference publications. Lower quality articles and web pages were consulted for references which were then confirmed or used as a base for further searches. Websites such as Wikipedia were useful for summarising new concepts and providing a starting point on various topics but never directly referenced. Such sites typically provide sufficient background and details on the foundations of concepts as a starting point for more in-depth searches.
Concerning the timing, preference was given to more recent work and the original works. For example, to understand Peirce’s concepts of pragmaticism, Plowright (2016) was consulted in conjunction with Peirce (1905).
34
• Argumentative strategy
In keeping with the cyclical approach to this study, the literature review followed a cyclical learning strategy promoted in the 16th century by Ignatius of Loyola (Nowacek & Mountin, 2012). Ignatius of Loyola observed a learning spiral within a context that cycled through experience, reflection and action before ending with evaluation. Part of literature reviews is synthesising the literature for which Besson and Rowe (2012) recommend a conceptual framework presented at the beginning of the literature review (Rowe, 2014). Applying the Ignatian pedagogy as a framework provides a structure for the literature review, as shown in Table 2.2.
Table 2.1. Structure of the literature review.
Step Section Ignatian Pedagogy Literature Review Conceptual Framework
1 3 Introduction
2 3.1 Context Literature Review Method
3 3.2 Experience Knowledge and Learning Spaces
3.3 Experiential Learning in Business Process Management Courses 3.4 Student Reflections for Improved Learning Outcomes
3.5 Generative Learning Mechanisms in Experiential Learning Projects
3.6 Reflective Practice
4 3.7 Reflection Reflection on the Knowledge Gap
5 3.8 Action Theoretical Lens Model
6 3.9 Evaluation Research Problem, Aim and Questions
7 3.10 Summary Chapter Summary