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:  Figure 4. Overview of the studies by publication year 
1. Abstract of Cited Paper (BIB001):  Over 10 years ago, the issue of whether IS researchers were rigorously validating their quantitative, positivist instruments was raised (Straub 1989). In the years that have passed since that time, the profession has undergone many changes. Novel technologies and management trends have come and gone. New professional societies have been formed and grown in prominence and new demands have been placed on the field's research and teaching obligations. But the issue of rigor in IS research has persisted throughout all such changes. Without solid validation of the instruments that are used to gather data upon which findings and interpretations are based, the very scientific basis of positivist, quantitative research is threatened. ::: ::: As a retrospective on the Straub article, this research seeks to determine if and how the field has advanced in instrument validation. As evidence of the change, we coded positivist, quantitative research articles in five major journals over a recent three year period for use of validation techniques. Findings suggest that the field has advanced in many areas, but, overall, it appears that a majority of published studies are still not sufficiently validating their instruments. Based on these findings, approaches are suggested for reinvigorating the quest for validation in IS research via content/construct validity, reliability, and manipulation validity. 
2. Abstract of Cited Paper (BIB002):  Many organizations attempt to deploy methodologies intended to improve software development processes. However, resistance by individual software developers against using such methodologies often obstructs their successful deployment. To better explain why individual developers accept or resist methodologies, five theoretical models of individual intentions to accept information technology tools were examined. In a field study of 128 developers in a large organization that implemented a methodology, each model explained significant variance in developers' intentions to use the methodology. Similar to findings from the tool adoption context, we found that, if a methodology is not regarded as useful by developers, its prospects for successful deployment may be severely undermined. In contrast to the typical pattern of findings in a tool context, however, we found that methodology adoption intentions are driven by: 1) the presence of an organizational mandate to use the methodology, 2) the compatibility of the methodology with how developers perform their work, and 3) the opinions of developers' coworkers and supervisors toward using the methodology. Collectively, these results provide surprising new insights into why software developers accept or resist methodologies and suggest what software engineering managers might do to overcome developer resistance. 
3. Abstract of Cited Paper (BIB003):  Interest in the problem of method biases has a long history in the behavioral sciences. Despite this, a comprehensive summary of the potential sources of method biases and how to control for them does not exist. Therefore, the purpose of this article is to examine the extent to which method biases influence behavioral research results, identify potential sources of method biases, discuss the cognitive processes through which method biases influence responses to measures, evaluate the many different procedural and statistical techniques that can be used to control method biases, and provide recommendations for how to select appropriate procedural and statistical remedies for different types of research settings. 
4. Abstract of Cited Paper (BIB004):  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.

Literature Review:
We also found that previous studies in the area of qualitative research consisted mainly of case research (CR) (2 publications), opinion research (OR) (1 publication), archival research (AR) including literature reviews (3 publications), and field research (FR) (2 publications). Surprisingly, all 19 studies focused on ISD methodologies and none analyzed ISM methodologies. Table 3 summarises the research approach of prior studies on the adoption of ISDM methodologies, based on the categorisation scheme of Stone  and exposes areas in which research is severely lacking. Studies based on quantitative research comprise mostly descriptive and exploratory research (8 publications) with few studies of confirmatory positivist nature based on valid measures and extensive statistical analysis BIB003 . The lack of quantitative confirmatory studies that conform to the generally accepted validity criteria BIB005 BIB001 BIB002 BIB002 BIB004 highlights the need to develop a conceptual theoretical framework, which can then form a basis for future confirmatory positivist research. In the next section, we discuss and critically examine a subset of these publications, which we consider to have significantly contributed to the existing body of knowledge on this very specific topic.