In this article we propose a taxonomy describing various types of literature review or theoretical/conceptual articles. We distinguish each article type based on how well they address the "summary" and "advocacy" arguments inherent in all secondary scholarship. Understanding this taxonomy of review/theory scholarship is critical because our field encompasses theory, research, and design, and thus needs to be expansive in our understanding of scholarship, including secondary research. Some scholars conduct comprehensive/systematic reviews that answer the summary question of "what we" know. Meanwhile, other scholars develop conceptual frameworks that guide our future design and research by answering the advocacy question of "what we should do." Many do not understand the differences between these different types of review scholarship, their roles, and the process and quality criteria for writing them. This limits our ability to teach students, review the variety of review and theory scholarship submitted to our journals, and propel our field forward. The taxonomy, scholarship process, and quality criteria presented in this article proposes a way forward in understanding the role of secondary scholarship in developing knowledge in our field.