You are presented with multiple paper abstracts, alongside the associated literature review and chapter titles. Given the provided information, you are going to do a literature review. Please generate a coherent literature review that synthesizes the content, draws connections between different works, highlights major findings, and identifies any gaps in the existing research.

Literature Review Title: Understanding acceptance of information system development and management methodologies by actual users: A review and assessment of existing literature 
Chapter Title:  Examination of Research Practices 
1. Abstract of Cited Paper (BIB001):  Calls for new directions in MIS research bring with them a call for renewed methodological rigor. This article offers an operating paradigm for renewal along dimensions previously unstressed. The basic contention is that confirmatory empirical findings will be strengthened when instrument validation precedes both internal and statistical conclusion validity and that, in many situations, MIS researchers need to validate their research instruments. This contention is supported by a survey of instrumentation as reported in sample IS journals over the last several years. ::: ::: A demonstration exercise of instrument validation follows as an illustration of some of the basic principles of validation. The validated instrument was designed to gather data on the impact of computer security administration on the incidence of computer abuse in the U.S.A. 
2. Abstract of Cited Paper (BIB002):  The issue of whether IS positivist researchers were validating their instruments sufficiently was initially raised fifteen years ago. Rigor in IS research is still one of the critical scientific issues facing the field. Without solid validation of the instruments that are used to gather data on which findings and interpretations are based, the very scientific basis of the profession is threatened. This study builds on four prior retrospectives of IS research that conclude that IS positivist researchers continue to face major barriers in instrument, statistical, and other forms of validation. It goes beyond these studies by offering analyses of the state-of-the-art of research validities and deriving specific heuristics for research practice in the validities. Some of these heuristics will, no doubt, be controversial. But we believe that it is time for the IS academic profession to bring such issues into the open for community debate. This article is a first step in that direction. Based on our interpretation of the importance of a long list of validities, this paper suggests heuristics for reinvigorating the quest for validation in IS research via content/construct validity, reliability, manipulation validity, and statistical conclusion validity. New guidelines for validation and new research directions are offered. 
3. Abstract of Cited Paper (BIB003):  1. The conundrum of the case study Part I. Thinking about Case Studies: 2. What is a case study?: the problem of definition 3. What is a case study good for?: case study versus Large-N cross-case analysis Part II. Doing Case Studies: 4. Preliminaries 5. Techniques for choosing cases 6. Internal validity: an experimental template 7. Internal validity: singular observations Epilogue: single-outcome studies.

Literature Review:
Each of the final 19 studies was examined according to 10 criteria (C1-C10 in table 2). These criteria were based on principles of good practice for qualitative (for e.g. BIB001 BIB004 ) and quantitative research (for e.g. BIB003 BIB002 ), in a process similar to that applied by Dybå and Dingsøyr  . The 10 criteria, adopted from Dybå and Dingsøyr  , covered four main issues pertaining to quality, which need to be considered when evaluating studies: a) Academic -Is it an academic Article?, b) Rigour -Has a thorough and appropriate approach been applied to key research methods in the study?, c) Credibility -Are the findings well-presented and meaningful?, and d) Relevance -Are the findings useful to the industry and/or the research community?. These 10 criteria provide a deeper understanding of the "reported" research practices/methodology of the studies. Each of the 10 criteria was examined, using an evaluation form that consisted of 34 questions, developed and validated by Dybå and Dingsøyr  (in some cases, wording of the original questions were changed to suit our research.) (Please contact the authors for the evaluation form.)