Abstract

Systematic reviews of the literature typically adopt a positivistic epistemology, guiding their methodological decisions with assumptions of linearity and a distinct split between description and interpretation, as opposed to the recursive standpoint of interpretivism. The Critical Interpretive Synthesis or Review (CIS/CIR) is an alternative to traditional systematic review procedures that integrates the tenets of interpretivism and works well with qualitative and quantitative sources. However, the original presentation of CIS/CIR is criticised for lacking systematicity, not just in positivist terms but also in terms of clear audit trails. In this article, I propose a series of methodological guidelines that could help bridge the interpretivist potential of CIR and its lack of systematicity. To achieve this, I draw from the methodological tools that interpretivist researchers employ when conducting primary studies and I illustrate that translation into literature reviews by referencing my experience reviewing different designs of dialogue about science and technology.