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:  BACKGROUND -WHAT IS A METHODOLOGY? 
1. Abstract of Cited Paper (BIB001):  This paper presents the findings of an empirical study into two organizations' experiences with the adoption and use of CASE tools over time. Using a grounded theory research approach, the study characterizes the organizations' experiences in terms of processes of incremental or radical organizational change. These findings are used to develop a theoretical framework for conceptualizing the organizational issues around the adoption and use of these tools-issues that have been largely missing from contemporary discussions of CASE tools. The paper thus has important implications for research and practice. Specifically, the framework and findings suggest that in order to account for the experiences and outcomes associated with CASE tools, researchers should consider the social context of systems development, the intentions and actions of key players, and the implementation process followed by the organization. Similarly, the paper suggests that practitioners will be better able to manage their organizations' experiences with CASE tools if they understand that such implementations involve a process of organizational change over time and not merely the installation of a new technology. 
2. Abstract of Cited Paper (BIB002):  This paper analyses the fundamental philosophical assumptions of five "contrasting" information systems development (ISD) approaches: the interactionist approach, the speech act-based approach, the soft systems methodology approach, the trade unionist approach, and the professional work practice approach. These five approaches are selected for analysis because they illustrate alternative philosophical assumptions from the dominant "orthodoxy" identified in the research literature. The paper also proposes a distinction between "approach" and "methodology." The analysis of the five approaches is organized around four basic questions: What is the assumed nature of an information system (ontology)? What is human knowledge and how can it be obtained (epistemology)? What are the preferred research methods for continuing the improvement of each approach (research methodology)? and what are the implied values of information system research (ethics)? Each of these questions is explored from the internal perspective of the particular ISD approach. The paper addresses these questions through a conceptual structure which is based on a paradigmatic framework for analyzing ISD approaches. 
3. Abstract of Cited Paper (BIB003):  This paper proposes a four-tiered framework for classifying and understanding the myriad of information systems development methodologies that have been proposed in the literature. The framework is divided into four levels: paradigms, approaches, methodologies, and techniques. This paper primarily focuses on the two intermediate levels: approaches and methodologies. The principal contribution of the framework is in providing a new kind of "deep structure" for better understanding the intellectual core of methodologies and approaches and their interrelationships. It achieves this goal by articulating a parsimonious set of foundational features that are shared by subsets of methodologies and approaches. To illustrate how the framework's deep structure provides a better understanding of methodologies' intellectual core, it is applied to eleven examples. The paper also introduces and illustrates a procedure for "accommodating" and "assimilating" new information systems development methodologies in addition to the eleven already discussed. This procedure provides the framework with the necessary flexibility for handling the continuing proliferation of new methodologies. 
4. Abstract of Cited Paper (BIB004):  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. 
5. Abstract of Cited Paper (BIB005):  The current swirl of diversity could signal a return to the days of ad hoc systems development, lack of formalmethodology, and consequent increase in failure. 
6. Abstract of Cited Paper (BIB006):  Seeking to improve software development, many organizations attempt to deploy formalized methodologies. This typically entails substantial behavioral change by software developers away from previous informal practices toward conformance with the methodology. Developers' resistance to such change often results in failure to fully deploy and realize the benefits of the methodology. The present research draws upon theories of intention formation and innovation diffusion to advance knowledge about why developers accept or resist following methodologies. Results from a field study within a large organization indicate that developers' intentions are directly influenced by their perceptions of usefulness, social pressure, compatibility, and organizational mandate. This pattern of intention determinants is quite different from that typically observed in studies of information technology tool adoption, revealing several key differences between the domains of tool versus methodology adoption. Specifically, although organizational mandate had a significant effect on intentions, the strength of its direct influence was the lowest among the four significant constructs, and usefulness, compatibility, and social pressure all influenced intentions directly, above and beyond the effects of organizational mandate. The findings suggest, contrary to popular belief, that an organizational mandate is not sufficient to guarantee use of the methodology in a sustained manner. 
7. Abstract of Cited Paper (BIB007):  This paper contributes to the ongoing work and debate on the value of project management, accomplishing this through an empirical investigation of practitioner perceptions on the relative value of ... 
8. Abstract of Cited Paper (BIB008):  Thank you for downloading systems thinking systems practice includes a 30 year retrospective. Maybe you have knowledge that, people have search hundreds times for their favorite readings like this systems thinking systems practice includes a 30 year retrospective, but end up in infectious downloads. Rather than reading a good book with a cup of tea in the afternoon, instead they juggled with some infectious virus inside their laptop.

Literature Review:
One of the most fundamental problem in the literature -as identified by Iivari et. al. BIB004 -is the debate on the use of method as opposed to methodology, or vise versa. They find that some authors use method and methodology interchangeably; that some think methods encompass methodologies; that some think methodologies encompass methods; and that some believe that there are no methodologies, only techniques. Results of our literature review revealed that this debate can be extended to include tools, since some studies regard methods to be tools (e.g. BIB008 ). Therefore, we consider that the discussion on ISDM methodologies can be updated to methodologies vs. methods vs. tools. The four-tiered conceptual structure, developed by Iivari et al. BIB004 , makes it relatively easy to classify the large number of existing methodologies as a result of its abstract and parsimonious construction. Using this structure, we propose the following definitions, which help us to better understand methodologies, their parts and the interrelationships between them (see Figure 1 ). Methodology. An ISDM methodology is a collection of goaloriented, problem solving methods/techniques governed by a set of normative principles  , beliefs, and a multi-step procedure that prescribes what to do and how to do things BIB009 BIB006 . Methods/Techniques. An ISDM method/technique consists of a well-defined sequence of elementary operations for conducting a portion of a phase of a methodology (consult BIB001 for a detailed overview of existing IS methods). Tools. An ISDM tool is an artifact, (usually software programs) that individuals may or may not use to support and facilitate the execution of a method/technique BIB007 BIB002 . An ISDM methodology implies a holistic goal-oriented approach, with cultural, educational, ideological and/or strategic implications, that guides the work and cooperation of the various parties (stakeholders) involved in the development and management of IS/IT BIB003 . Methods and tools are only a subset of methodologies meant to support them (a means to an end) BIB003 . It is important that we distinguish between the use of tools, techniques/methods, and the use of an entire methodology, since tools and techniques can be used in the absence of a formal methodology. Furthermore, the use of a methodology represents a much more radical change than the use of tools and methods BIB007 BIB005 . This distinction was demonstrated by Orlikowski BIB002 , and mentioned by Hardgrave et al. BIB007 . Orlikowski BIB002 examined two CASE tool adoption environments: in the first environment, a methodology was present and CASE tools were adopted to support the existing methodology (a minor change for the stakeholders); the second environment had no methodology in place. Therefore, an ISD methodology and a CASE tool, specifically designed for that methodology, was adopted (a radical change for the stakeholders). Comparing the two adoption scenarios, Orlikowski found that the reactions of the stakeholders significantly differed. He concluded that this was because stakeholders in the first environment did not have to undergo radical change, compared to those in the second environment who had to adopt a complete new methodology with the CASE tool. This particular example illustrates clearly the need for a more holistic approach when studying methodology acceptance.