Our iterative search process comprised three stages:

 i.      Stage 1: Database searches

First, we searched the following academic databases for relevant work:

• ERIC
• APA PsycInfo
• Education Source
• Communication & Mass Media Complete
• Library, Information Science & Technology Abstracts

We relied on the following search pattern:

transcultural* AND (media OR technology OR Digital) AND (Keyword)

In this pattern, AND/OR function as Boolean operators and * is a wildcard, where results of the search will include any group of characters that might follow that word. We focussed our initial search on the term “transcultural*,” as it provided an accessible entry point into the literature. This approach was necessary because broader terms such as “cultur*” yielded tens of thousands of results and were therefore impractical for a systematic review. However, in the following steps of data collection (steps ii. and iii., described below), we complemented this initial focus by integrating additional perspectives, including, but not limited to, inter- and cross-cultural studies. Additionally, a series of keywords were included in this search, drawing from the categories of the previous book and some emergent themes, including:

• Identity OR Community (188 results)
• Education OR learning OR teaching (368 results)
• Literacy OR literacies (61 results)
• Games (11 results)
• Intercultural (143 results)
• Language (158 results)
• Communication (245 results)

Following PRISMA guidelines (Peters et al., 2020), our initial search identified 1,174 records across all seven themes. We then conducted a multi-stage screening process. During the title and abstract screening, we excluded works that were not topically relevant to our objectives, particularly those that did not directly address intersections of culture, communication, and technology. At the full-text stage, we further excluded entries that were not readily accessible or that did not contribute novel insights beyond what was already represented in our emerging sample. This screening process was carried out cyclically alongside steps ii. and iii. (described below), allowing us to refine and expand our sample iteratively.

ii.      Stage 2: Citation tracing

Based on materials compiled in our first-stage sample, we then undertook bi-directional citation tracing (Hinde & Spackman, 2015). We first reviewed the reference section of each publication, looking for titles that could indicate a study of interest to this book and reviewing the abstract of each possibly relevant publication. If the abstract indicated a topic of interest that responded to our inclusion/exclusion criteria, we included it in our sample. We then made use of Google Scholar to discover later publications that had cited work in our sample corpus–repeating the process of identifying titles, reviewing the abstracts and including them in the sample if applicable.

iii.      Stage 3: Expert recommendations

A third and final stage of compiling relevant literature for this book consisted of soliciting recommendations from scholars in areas related to technology, communication, education, and culture (for example, by reaching out to colleagues previously affiliated with the Cultural Attitudes Towards Technology and Communication (CATaC) conference series. As in previous stages, we only included articles or chapters that successfully met our inclusion/exclusion criteria.