Critical Discourse Analysis as a Review Methodology: An Empirical Example

Abstract

Research disciplines and subdisciplines are steeped in epistemological beliefs and theoretical assumptions that guide and constrain research. These beliefs and assumptions both enable scientific inquiry and limit scientific progress. Theory and review papers tend to be a means for reproducing ideological assumptions. However, review papers can also challenge ideological assumptions by critically assessing taken-for-granted assumptions. Critical review methods are underdeveloped in the management disciplines. The information systems (IS) discipline must do more to improve the critical examination of its scientific discourse. In this paper, we present a method with guiding principles and steps for systematically conducting critical reviews of IS literature based on Habermasian strains of critical discourse analysis. We provide an empirical example of the method. The empirical example offers a critical review of behavioral information security research with a focus on employees' security behaviors.

Ultrasound in undergraduate medical education: a systematic and critical review

“…The use of CDA techniques within a methodology for a critical literature review is relatively novel. A recent article by Wall et al . describes the adaptation of Habermasian CDA as a systematic review method that can help expose strongly and commonly held assumptions within a research community.…”

“…describes the adaptation of Habermasian CDA as a systematic review method that can help expose strongly and commonly held assumptions within a research community. Our approach to data extraction and qualitative data synthesis fits within the category of content analysis and focuses on the validity claims as described by Wall et al . and adapted from Cukier et al .…”

“…and ‘sincerity’ ( Is what is said consistent with how it is said? ) claims within this CDA‐oriented schema . This data extraction and synthesis approach, to be clear, does not search for ‘conscious hegemonic participation’; it does not attempt to ‘incriminate’ authors as individual deceptive actors who falsify data out of conflicts of interest or ulterior motives .…”

“…This data extraction and synthesis approach, to be clear, does not search for ‘conscious hegemonic participation’; it does not attempt to ‘incriminate’ authors as individual deceptive actors who falsify data out of conflicts of interest or ulterior motives . We chose to focus on these validity claims to inform our understanding of the body of literature ‘to uncover unconscious hegemonic participation in academic research’, critically focusing on dominant ideas and concepts that authors and research communities take for granted . This critical review method is the best suited to answer our key questions about the availability of evidence for undergraduate ultrasound training while highlighting unquestioned assumptions within this domain of medical education research.…”

“…A recent article by Wall et al 31 describes the adaptation of Habermasian CDA as a systematic review method that can help expose strongly and commonly held assumptions within a research community. Our approach to data extraction and qualitative data synthesis fits within the category of content analysis 32 and focuses on the validity claims as described by Wall et al 31 and adapted from Cukier et al 33 Unlike these authors, because we are working in a different field, we first categorised publications by the outcomes reported and then summarised the relevant findings. In our synthesis, we concentrated on the 'truth' (Are the evidence and reasoning provided sufficient?)…”