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: Identity and collective action via computer-mediated communication: A review and agenda for future research 
Chapter Title:  Descriptive analysis 
1. Abstract of Cited Paper (BIB001):  ■ Abstract Sociologists have turned to collective identity to fill gaps in resource mobilization and political process accounts of the emergence, trajectories, and impacts of social movements. Collective identity has been treated as an alternative to structurally given interests in accounting for the claims on behalf of which people mobilize, an alternative to selective incentives in understanding why people participate, an alternative to instrumental rationality in explaining what tactical choices activists make, and an alternative to institutional reforms in assessing movements’ impacts. Collective identity has been treated both too broadly and too narrowly, sometimes applied to too many dynamics, at other times made into a residual category within structuralist, state-centered, and rationalist accounts. 
2. Abstract of Cited Paper (BIB002):  Author(s): Snow, David | Abstract: This article provides an analytic overview of scholarly work on the concept of collective identity by considering its conceptualization and various empirical manifestations, the analytic approaches informing its discussion and analysis, and a number of theoretical and empirical issues, including a synopsis of the symbolic means through which collective identity is expressed and asserted. Although the scholarly roots of the concept can be traced to classical sociologists such as Marx and Durkheim, and more recently to the mid-century work of scholars such as Erik Erickson and Erving Goffman, it was not until the latter quarter of the past century that the concept generated an outpouring of work invoking the concept directly or referring to it indirectly through the linkage of various collectivities and their identity interests via such concepts as identity politics, identity projects, contested identities, insurgent identities, nationalism, imagined communities, identity movements and even social movements more generally. Conceptually, the essence of collective identity resides in a shared and interactive sense of "we-ness" and "collective agency." Although the concept is distinguished analytically from both personal identity and social identity, the three types of identity clearly overlap and interact. Empirically, collective identity can surface in a variety of contexts, although the preponderance of research has focused on its connection to gender, ethnicity, religion, nationalism and particularly social movements. Analytically, collective identity has generally been discussed from a primordial, structural, and/or constructionist standpoint. Primordial and structural approaches are discussed as variants of essentialism, which is contrasted to constructionism. Among other things, constructionism focuses attention on the symbolic expression and maintenance of collective identities.

Literature Review:
We used descriptive analysis to summarise the literature in terms of key concepts, methodological approaches and perspectives (Table 1) . Identity types and phases. The vast majority of articles were one-type studies on either social (34%) or collective (46%) identity. Multiple-type studies combined only two types, mostly individual and collective (14%). Regarding the identity process, research mainly focused on such a process' initial phases (expression and framing, 19%; formation, building and construction, 56%). Studies on various forms of identification (social, group, collective) were also quite common (24%). By contrast, analyses on later phases (e.g. negotiation, maintenance, diffusion) were less frequent (<7%). Forms of collective action. In the literature, we found studies that focused only on one form of collective action (either CMC-based or CMC-supported) or compared the two with each other. Scholars mostly conducted comparative studies (42%) or studied only CMCsupported collective action (31%). Methodological approaches. Overall, qualitative methods were mostly used (53%), followed by mixed (25%) and quantitative (22%) approaches. Qualitative research was largely applied to one-type studies that focused on collective identity formation. Thematic analysis, interviews and digital ethnography were found to be more common in in-depth analytical approaches to study this phase. Quantitative methods were mostly used in social identity studies because statistical analysis and field experiments proved valuable to investigate the relation between identification processes and collective action. Finally, mixed methods were predominantly used in studies of collective identity expression and formation. This shows an emerging practice of combining different methodologies to assess both the qualitative nature of identity and the quantitative, network structure of CMC. Perspectives. In the literature, we identified three main perspectives in which scholars used distinct approaches in theory, methods and analysis: social psychologists (17%), new social movement (NSM) scholars (17%) and bridging scholars (42%). A fourth category, 'Other' (24%), included all articles that could not fit into any of the other perspectives. Table 2 provides a summary of each perspective's main characteristics. Figure 2 illustrates the distribution of articles per perspective, identity type and methodological approach. In the literature, we noticed that the labels used to address identity types differed between the perspectives of the scholars. For example, social psychologists focused on social identity theory  BIB001 and considered social identity one of the main psychosocial predictors of collective action. Social psychology studies were mostly one-type and used quantitative methods. NSM scholars, by contrast, followed in the footsteps of the social movement theory tradition   BIB002 BIB003  : Using (mostly qualitative) research, they considered collective identity to be very relevant to the study of collective action. Finally, we found that most of the studies could be positioned as a 'bridge' linking theories on identity, social movements, networks and media. Although their research was mostly qualitative, bridging scholars explored mixed-methods approaches to study the changing nature of identity in collective action via CMC. We defined the remaining articles that could not be classified in any of the groups above as 'Other' because they focused on particular types of identity (e.g. gender, ethnic, national), theoretical approaches (e.g. ethos, self-presentation, gender theories) and disciplines (e.g. linguistics, semiotic, anthropology). These (mostly qualitative) studies show how research on identity and collective action is very diverse and multidisciplinary.