Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Introduction: Why Theory? (Mis)Understanding the Context and Rationale

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Advancing Information Systems Theories

Part of the book series: Technology, Work and Globalization ((TWG))

Abstract

This introduction sets the stage for what this series of volumes on information systems (IS) research seeks to accomplish, that is, to move the standards of IS research beyond its comfort zone of deriving legitimacy from its more established reference disciplines toward crafting fresh and original indigenous theory. The first step toward reaching this goal involves reaching an agreement on the need for theory, and the preeminent role of theory as the most distinctive product of human intellectual activity. Following Aristotle’s approach to addressing the “Why?” question by answering the “What?” question, this chapter reviews major discussions surrounding the definition of theory from multiple disciplines and proposes a novel, more inclusive view of theory that encompasses the views of these disciplines while, at the same time, highlights the unique goals that each theory category addresses. These unique communicative goals: theory as proposition, model, paradigm, worldview, grand theory, methodology, explanation, significant description, prescription, and metatheory offers researchers a wider space within which exciting and original theorizing can take place.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 139.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Abbasi, A., Sarker, S., & Chiang, R. (2016). Big data research in information systems: Toward an inclusive research agenda. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 17(2), i–xxxii. https://doi.org/10.17705/1jais.00423

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Abend, G. (2008). The meaning of “theory”. Sociology Theory, 26(2), 173–199.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Achinstein, P. (1983). The nature of explanation. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ågerfalk, P. J. (2014). Insufficient theoretical contribution: A conclusive rationale for rejection? European Journal of Information Systems, 23(6), 593–599.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alexander, J. C. (1982). Positivism, presuppositions, and current controversies, theoretical logic in sociology. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alvesson, M., & Sandberg, J. (2011). Generating research questions through problematization. Academy of Management Review, 36(2), 247–271.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, C. (2008). The end of theory. Wired, 16(7), 71.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, R. M., Heesterbeek, H., Klinkenberg, D., & Hollingsworth, T. D. (2020). How will country-based mitigation measures influence the course of the COVID-19 epidemic? Lancet, 395(10228), 931–934.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Argyris, C., & Schön, D. A. (1974). Theory in practice: Increasing professional effectiveness. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Avison, D., & Malaurent, J. (2014). Is theory king?: Questioning the theory fetish in information systems. Journal of Information Technology, 29(4), 327–336.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bacharach, S. B. (1989). Organizational theories: Some criteria for evaluation. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 496–515.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bacon, F. (1620). Novum Organum. London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Banville, C., & Landry, M. (1989). Can the field of MIS be disciplined? Communications of the ACM, 32(1), 48–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baskerville, R., & Myers, M. D. (2004). Special issue on action research: Making information system research relevant to practice. MIS Quarterly, 28(3), 329–335.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baskerville, R. L., & Myers, M. D. (2002). Information systems as a reference discipline. MIS Quarterly, 26(1), 1–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baskerville, R. L., & Wood-Harper, A. T. (1996). A critical perspective on action research as a method for information systems research. Journal of Information Technology, 11, 235–246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Becher, J. J. (1703). Physica subterranea. Spirensis, Germany: Lipsiae.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bechtel, W., & Abrahamsen, A. (2005). Explanation: A mechanist alternative. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 36(2), 421–441. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsc.2005.03.010

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bell, D. (1973). The coming of the post-industrial society: A venture in social forecasting. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benbasat, I., & Barki, H. (2007). Quo vadis TAM? Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 8(4), 211–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benbasat, I., & Konsynski, B. (1988). Introduction to special section on GDSS. MIS Quarterly, 12(4), 588–590.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benton, T., & Craib, I. (2001). Philosophy of social science: The Philosophical foundations of social thought. New York: Palgrave.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1966). The social construction of reality. New York: Anchor Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bertalanffy, L. v. (1968). General systems theory: Foundations, development, applications. New York: George Braziller.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bertens, H. (1993). The postmodern weltanschauung and its relation to modernism: An introductory survey. In J. Natoli & L. Hutcheon (Eds.), A postmodern reader (pp. 25–70). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bichler, M., Frank, U., Avison, D., Malaurent, J., Fettke, P., Hovorka, D., et al. (2016). Theories in business and information systems engineering. Business Information Systems Engineering, 58(4), 291–319.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blake, R. R., & Mouton, J. S. (1964). The managerial grid: Key orientations for achieving production through people. Houston, TX: Gulf Publishing Co..

    Google Scholar 

  • Blalock, H. M. (1969). Theory construction: From verbal to mathematical formulations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blaug, M. (1997). Economic theory in retrospect. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Boland, R. J. (1985). Phenomenology: A preferred approach to research on information systems. In E. Mumford et al. (Eds.), Research methods in information systems (pp. 193–200). North-Holland: Elsevier Science Publishers B. V.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bostrom, R. P., Gupta, S., & Thomas, D. (2009). A meta-theory for understanding information systems within sociotechnical systems. Journal of Management Information Systems, 26(1), 17–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boulding, K. E. (1955). Notes on the information concept. Exploration, 6, 103–112.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a theory of practice. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Brentano, F. C. (1874). Psychology from an empirical standpoint. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bunge, M. (1997). Mechanism and explanation. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 27(4), 410–465.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burrell, G., & Morgan, G. (1979). Sociological paradigms and organisational analysis. London: Heinemann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burton-Jones, A., McLean, E. R., & Monod, E. (2015). Theoretical perspectives in IS research: From variance and process to conceptual latitude and conceptual fit. European Journal of Information Systems, 24(6), 664–679. https://doi.org/10.1057/ejis.2014.31

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Byron, K., & Thatcher, S. M. B. (2016). Editors’ comments: “What I know now that I wish I knew then”—teaching theory and theory building. Academy of Management Review, 41(1), 1–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cadwalladr, C., & Graham-Harrison, E. (2018). How Cambridge Analytica turned Facebook “likes” into a lucrative political tool. The Guardian.

    Google Scholar 

  • Callon, M. (2007). What does it mean to say that economics is performative. In D. MacKenzie, F. Muniesa, & L. Siu (Eds.), Do economists make markets? On the performativity of economics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Charles, D. (2000). Aristotle on meaning and essence. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clegg, S., & Bailey, J. R. (2008). Prescriptive theory. In International encyclopedia of organization studies. SAGE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collins, R. (1986). Weberian sociological theory. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Colquitt, J. A., & Zapata-Phelan, C. P. (2007). Trends in theory building and theory testing: A five-decade study of the academy of management journal. Academy of Management Journal, 50(6), 1281–1303.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Copi, I. M., & Cohen, C. (2001). Introduction to logic. New York: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Corley, K. G., & Gioia, D. A. (2011). Building theory about theory building: What constitutes a theoretical contribution. Academy of Management Review, 36(1), 12–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Corvellec, H. (2013). Why ask what theory is? In H. Corvellec (Ed.), What is theory? Answers from the social and cultural sciences (pp. 9–24). Copenhagen: Liber CBS Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 318–340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1989). User acceptance of computer technology: A comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science, 35(8), 982–1003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davison, R. M., Martinsons, M. G., & Kock, N. (2004). Principles of Canonical action research. Information Systems Journal, 14, 65–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Delone, W. H., & McLean, E. R. (1992). Information system success: The quest for the dependent variable. Information Systems Research, 3(1), 60–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dent, E. B. (1999). Complexity science: A worldview shift. Emergence, 1(4), 5–19. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327000em0104_2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeSanctis, G., & Poole, M. S. (1994). Capturing the complexity in advanced technology use—adaptive structuration theory. Organization Science, 5(2), 121–147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dhar, V. (2013). Data science and prediction. Communications of the ACM, 56(12), 64–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dickson, G. W. (1981). Management information systems: Evolution and status. In M. C. Yovits (Ed.), Advances in Computers (pp. 1–37). New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dilthey, W. (1883). Introduction to the human sciences. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dilthey, W. (1957) Philosophy of existence: Introduction to Weltanschauungslehre (W. Kluback and M. Weinbaum, Trans.). New York, NY: Bookman Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • DiMaggio, P. (1995). Comments on “What Theory Is Not”. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(3), 391–397.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doty, D. H., & Glick, W. H. (1994). Typologies as a unique form of theory building: Toward improved understanding and modeling. Academy of Management Review, 19(2), 230–251.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Drucker, P. F. (1969). The age of discontinuity: Guidelines to our changing society. New York: Harper & Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dubin, R. (1969). Building theory. New York: The Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duhem, P. (1906). The aim and structure of physical theory (P. Wiener, Trans.). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Durkheim, E. (1895). Les règles de la méthode sociologique (The rules of the sociological method). Paris: F. Alcan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532–551.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fauci, A. S., Touchette, N. A., & Folkers, G. K. (2005). Emerging infectious diseases: A 10-year perspective from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Emerging Infectious Diseases, 11(4), 519–525. https://doi.org/10.3201/eid1104.041167

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fawcett, J. (1998). The relationship of theory and research. Philadelphia: F. A. Davis Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fawcett, J., & Downs, F. S. (1986). The relationship of theory and research. Norwalk, CT: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention and behavior. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1977). Belief, attitude, intention and behavior. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Fraassen, B. C. (1980). The scientific image. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Freese, L. (1980). Formal theorizing. Annual Review of Sociology, 6, 187–212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, V. J., & Rogers, T. (2009). There is nothing so theoretical as good action research. Action Research, 7(1), 31–47. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476750308099596

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gadamer, H.-G. (1975). Truth and method (2nd ed.). New York: Continuum Publishing Group.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gadamer, H.-G. (1976). Philosophical hermeneutics. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gadamer, H.-G. (1998). Praise of theory: Speeches and essays. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Galliers, R. D. (2003). Change as crisis or growth? Toward a trans-disciplinary view of information systems as a field of study: A response to Benbasat and Zmud’s call for returning to the IT artifact. Journal of the AIS, 4(6), 337–351.

    Google Scholar 

  • Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures. New York, NY: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giddens, A. (1976). New rules of sociological method: A positive critique of interpretive sociologies (2nd ed.). New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert, W. (1893). On the loadstone and magnetic bodies and on the great magnet the earth. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gioia, D. A., & Pitre, E. (1990). Multiparadigm perspectives on theory building. The Academy of Management Review, 15(4), 584–602.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. New York, NY: Aldine de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glennan, S. S. (1996). Mechanisms and the nature of causation. Erkenntnis, 44(1), 49–71. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00172853

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goes, P. B. (2013). Editor’s comment. Commonalities across IS silos and intradisciplinary information systems research. MIS Quarterly, 37(2), iii–vii.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gorry, G. A., & Scott Morton, M. S. (1971). A framework for management information systems. Sloan Management Review, 13(1), 55–70.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gray, P. (2003). Introduction to the debate on the core of the information systems field. Communications of the AIS, 12(1), p. Art. 42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gregor, S. (2006). The nature of theory in information systems. MIS Quarterly, 30(3), 611–642.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gregor, S. (2014). Theory—Still king but needing a revolution! Journal of Information Technology, 29(4), 337–340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gregor, S., & Hevner, A. R. (2013). Positioning and presenting design science research for maximum impact. MIS Quarterly, 37(2), 337–355.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gregor, S., & Jones, D. (2007). The anatomy of a design theory. Journal of the AIS, 8(5), 312–335.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grover, V. (2012). The information systems field: Making a case for maturity and contribution. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 13(4), 254–272.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grover, V., & Lyytinen, K. (2015). New state of play in information systems research: The push to the edges. MIS Quarterly, 39(2), 271–296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grover, V., Lyytinen, K., & Weber, R. (2012). Panel on native IS theories. In Special Interest Group on Philosophy and Epistemology in IS (SIGPHIL) Workshop on IS Theory: State of the Art. Orlando, FL, Dec 16–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hallberg, M. (2013). Looking at theory in theory of science. In H. Corvellec (Ed.), What is theory? answers from the social and cultural sciences (pp. 65–87). Copenhagen: Liber CBS Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hambrick, D. C. (2007). The field of management’s devotion to theory: Too much of a good thing? Academy of Management Journal, 50(6), 1346–1352.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hanson, N. R. (1958). Patterns of discovery: An inquiry into the conceptual foundations of science. London: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harré, R. (1970). The principles of scientific thinking. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Harré, R. (1976). The constructive role of models. In L. Collins (Ed.), The use of models in the social sciences (pp. 16–43). Boulder, CO: Westview Press, Inc..

    Google Scholar 

  • Hassan, N. R. (2011). Is information systems a discipline? Foucauldian and Toulminian insights. European Journal of Information Systems, 20(4), 456–476.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hassan, N. R. (2014). Paradigm lost … paradigm gained: A hermeneutical rejoinder to Banville and Landry’s “Can the Field of MIS be Disciplined?”. European Journal of Information Systems, 23(6), 600–615.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hassan, N. R. (2019). The origins of business analytics and implications for the information systems field. Journal of Business Analytics. Taylor & Francis, 2(2), 118–133. https://doi.org/10.1080/2573234x.2019.1693912.

  • Hassan, N. R., Mathiassen, L., & Lowry, P. B. (2019). The process of information systems theorizing as a discursive practice. Journal of Information Technology, 34(3), 198–220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hassan, N. R., Mingers, J., & Stahl, B. (2018). Philosophy and information systems: Where are we and where should we go? European Journal of Information Systems. Taylor & Francis, 27(3), 263–277. https://doi.org/10.1080/0960085X.2018.1470776.

  • Hassan, N. R., & Mingers, J. C. (2018). Reinterpreting the Kuhnian paradigm in information systems. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 19(7), 568–599.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hassard, J. (1991). Multiple paradigms and organizational analysis: A case study. Organization Studies, 12(2), 275–299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hedström, P., & Swedberg, R. (2010). Social mechanisms: An introductory essay. In Social mechanisms: An analytical approach to social theory (pp. 1–31). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hedström, P., & Udehn, L. (2009). Analytical sociology and theories of the middle range. In P. Hedström & P. Bearman (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of analytical sociology (pp. 25–47). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heidegger, M. (1977a). Basic writings from being and time to the task of thinking. New York: Harper & Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heidegger, M. (1977b). The question concerning technology, and other essays. New York: Harper & Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heidegger, M. (1982). The basic problems of phenomenology. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heidegger, M. (1999). Ontology-The hermeneutics of facticity. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Held, D. (1980). Introduction to critical theory: Horkheimer to Habermas. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hempel, C. G. (1965). Aspects of scientific explanation and other essays in the philosophy of science. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hempel, C. G., & Oppenheim, P. (1948). Studies in the logic of explanation. Philosophy of Science, 15(2), 135–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hesse, M. B. (1966). Models and analogies in science. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hevner, A. R., March, S. T., Park, J., & Ram, S. (2004). Design science in information systems research. MIS Quarterly, 28(1), 75–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hirschheim, R. (2006). Special research perspectives issue on the IS core/identity debate. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 7(10), 700–702. https://doi.org/10.17705/1jais.00105

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hirschheim, R. (2019). Against theory: With apologies to feyerabend. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 20(9), 1340–1357. https://doi.org/10.17705/1jais.00569

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hirschheim, R., Dennis, A. R., & Willcocks, L. (2019). Panel presentation. In SIGPHIL@ICIS Workshop on the Death of Theory in IS and Analytics, Munich, Germany, Dec 15–16. Special Interest Group on Philosophy in Information Systems (SIGPHIL).

    Google Scholar 

  • Holmström, J. (2005). Theorizing in IS research: What came before and what comes next? Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems, 17(1), 167–174.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holmström, J., & Truex, D. (2011). Dropping your tools: Exploring when and how theories can serve as blinders in IS research. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 28(1), 283–294, Article 19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Homans, G. C. (1974). Social behavior: Its elementary forms. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc..

    Google Scholar 

  • Husserl, E. (1911). Philosophy as rigorous science. In Q. Lauer (Ed.), Phenomenology and the crisis of philosophy. New York: Harper and Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Isaac, J. (2020). Theorist at work: Talcott Parsons and the Carnegie Project on theory, 1949–1951. Journal of the History of Ideas, 71(2), 287–311.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jaccard, J., & Jacoby, J. (2010). Theory construction and model-building skills: A practical guide for social scientists. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • James, W. (1890). The principles of psychology. New York: Henry Holt and Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, M. (1999). Structuration theory. In W. Currie & B. Galliers (Eds.), Rethinking management information systems (pp. 103–135). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kang, C., & Frenkel, S. (2018). Facebook says Cambridge Analytica harvested data of up to 87 million users. New York Times. Retrieved March 3, 2019, from https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/04/technology/mark-zuckerberg-testify-congress.html.

  • Kaplan, A. (1964). The conduct of inquiry: Methodology for behavioral science. San Francisco: Chandler Pub. Co..

    Google Scholar 

  • Karahanna, E., Davis, G. B., Mukhopadhyay, T., O’Keefe, B., Watson, R. T., and Weber, R. (2002). Information systems’s voyage to self-discovery: Is the First stage the development of a theory? In International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS). Barcelona, Spain.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keen, P. G. W. (1980). MIS research: Reference disciplines and a cumulative tradition. In E. McLean (Ed.), International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS) (pp. 9–18). Philadelphia, PA: ACM Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keen, P. G. W. (1987). MIS research: Current status, trends and needs. In R. Buckingham et al. (Eds.), Information systems education: Recommendations and implementation (pp. 1–13). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kilduff, M., Mehra, A., & Dunn, M. B. (2011). From blue sky research to problem solving: A philosophy of science theory of new knowledge production. Academy of Management Review, 36(2), 297–317.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kitchin, R. (2014). The data revolution: Big data, open data, data infrastructures & their consequences. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klein, H. K., Hirschheim, R. A., & Nissen, H.-E. (1991). A pluralist perspective of the information systems research arena. In H. K. Klein, R. A. Hirschheim, & H.-E. Nissen (Eds.), Information systems research: Contemporary approaches and emergent traditions. North Holland: Elsevier Science Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koontz, H. (1961). The management theory jungle. The Journal of the Academy of Management, 4(3), 174–188.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, T. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kvale, S. (1983). The qualitative research interview: A phenomenological and a hermeneutical mode of understanding. Journal of Phenomenological Psychology, 14(2), 171–196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Landry, M., & Banville, C. (1992). ‘A disciplined methodological pluralism for MIS research’, Accounting. Management and Information Technology, 2(2), 77–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Larson, C. J. (1973). Major themes in sociological theory. Philadelphia, PA: D. McKay Co..

    Google Scholar 

  • Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor-network-theory. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lavoisier, A. L. (1777). Mémoires de l’Académie Royale des Sciences. Paris: Royal Academy of Sciences.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lear, J. (1988). Aristotle: The desire to understand. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, A. S. (1991). Architecture as a reference discipline for MIS. In H.-E. Nissen, H. K. Klein, & R. Hirschheim (Eds.), Information systems research: Contemporary approaches and emergent traditions (pp. 573–592). Amsterdam: Elsevier North-Holland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, A. S. (2014). Theory is king? But first, what is theory? Journal of Information Technology, 29(4), 350–352.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levine, D. N. (2015). Social theory as a vocation: Genres of theory work in sociology. New York: Transaction Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewin, K. (1951). Field theory in social science: Selected theoretical papers. New York, NY: Harper & Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, M. W., & Grimes, A. J. (1999). Metatriangulation: Building theory from multiple paradigms. Academy of Management Review, 24(4), 672–690.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liddell, H. G., & Scott, R. (1889). An intermediate Greek-English Lexicon. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liedman, S.-E. (2013). Beholding, explaining, and predicting—The history of the concept of theory. In H. Corvellec (Ed.), What is theory? Answers from the social and cultural sciences (pp. 25–47). Copenhagen: Liber CBS Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lim, S., Saldanha, T., Malladi, S., & Melville, N. P. (2013). Theories used in information systems research: Insights from complex network analysis. Journal of Information Technology Theory and Application, 14(2), 5–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Linnaeus, C. (1735). Systema naturea. Paris: M.A. David.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lyons, J. (2009). The house of wisdom: How the Arabs transformed western civilization. New York: Bloomsbury Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lyytinen, K., & King, J. L. (2004). Nothing at the center? Academic legitimacy in the information systems field. Journal of the AIS, 5(6), 220–246.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lyytinen, K., & King, J. L. (2006). The theoretical core and academic legitimacy: A response to professor Weber. Journal of the AIS, 7(10), 714–721.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lyytinen, K., & Klein, H. K. (1985). The critical theory of Jurgen Habermas as a basis for a theory of information system. In E. Mumford, et al. (eds.), Research Methods in Information Systems, Proceedings: IFIP WG 8.2 Colloquium, Manchester, 1–3 September, 1984, Amsterdam: North Holland. North Holland: Elsevier Science Publishers B. V.

    Google Scholar 

  • Machamer, P., Darden, L., & Craver, C. F. (2000). Thinking about mechanisms. Philosophy of Science, 67(1), 1–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacKenzie, D. (2006). An engine, not a camera: How financial models shape markets. Boston, MA: MIT Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • March, S. T., & Smith, G. F. (1995). Design and natural science research in information technology. Decision Support Systems, 15, 251–266.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Markus, M. L. (1999). Thinking the unthinkable: What happens if the IS field as we know it goes away? In W. Currie & B. Galliers (Eds.), Rethinking management information systems. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Markus, M. L. (2014). Maybe not the king, but an invaluable subordinate: A commentary on Avison and Malaurent’s advocacy of “theory light” IS research. Journal of Information Technology, 29(4), 341–345.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Markus, M. L., & Robey, D. (1988). Information technology and organizational change: Causal structure in theory and research. Management Science, 34(5), 583–598.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Markus, M. L., & Rowe, F. (2018). Is IT changing the world? Conceptions of causality for information systems theorizing. MIS Quarterly, 42(4), 1255–1280.

    Google Scholar 

  • Markus, M. L., & Saunders, C. S. (2007). Editorial comments: Looking for a few good concepts…and theories…for the information systems field. MIS Quarterly, 31(1), iii–vi.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marx, K. (1866). Capital (Vol. 1). Hamburg: Otto Meissner.

    Google Scholar 

  • Masterman, M. (1970). The nature of a paradigm. In I. Lakatos & A. Musgrave (Eds.), Criticism and the growth of knowledge: International colloquium in the philosophy of science (Bedford College, 1965) (pp. 59–89). London: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Mayer-Schönberger, V., & Cukier, K. (2013). Big data: A revolution that will transform how we live, work, and think. New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGregor, D. (1960). The human side of enterprise. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • McPhee, K. (1996). Design theory and software design. Edmonton, Alberta, Canada: Department of Computing Science, The University of Alberta.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merton, R. K. (1945). Sociological theory. The American Journal of Sociology, 50(6), 462–473.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merton, R. K. (1968). Sociological theories of the middle range. In Social theory and social structure (pp. 39–72). New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merton, R. K. (1996). On social structure and science (P. Sztompka, ed.). Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Michels, R. (1915). Political parties: A sociological study of the oligarchical tendencies of modern democracy (E. Paul and C. Paul, Trans.). New York: The Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mills, C. W. (1959). The sociological imagination. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mingers, J. (2001). Combining IS research methods: Towards a pluralist methodology. Information Systems Research, 12(3), 240–259.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mingers, J. (2003). The paucity of multimethod research: A review of the information systems literature. Information Systems Journal, 13(3), 233–249.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mingers, J., & Brocklesby, J. (1997). ‘Multimethodology: Towards a framework for mixing methodologies’, Omega. International Journal of Management Science, 25(5), 489–509.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mohr, L. B. (1982). Explaining organizational behavior. San Francisco CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moody, D., Iacob, M.-E., & Amrit, C. (2010). In search of paradigms: Identifying the theoretical foundations of the IS field. In European Conference on Information Systems. June 6–9, Pretoria, South Africa.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mueller, B., & Urbach, N. (2017). Understanding the why, what, and how of theories in IS research. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 41(Art 17), 349–388.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mumford, E., Hirschheim, R., Fitzgerald, G., & Wood-Harper, A. T. (1985). Research methods in information systems. In Proceedings: IFIP WG 8.2 Colloquium, Manchester, 1–3 September, 1984. North Holland: Elsevier Science Publishers B. V.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nagel, E. (1979). The structure of science: Problems in the logic of scientific explanation. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newton, I. (1687). Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica (The mathematical principles of natural philosophy). London: Joseph Streater for the Royal Society.

    Google Scholar 

  • Niederman, F., & March, S. T. (2019). Broadening the conceptualization of theory in the information systems discipline: A meta-theory approach. Data Base for Advances in Information Systems, 50(2), 18–44. https://doi.org/10.1145/3330472.3330476

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nissen, H.-E., Klein, H. K., & Hirschheim, R. A. (1991). Information systems research: Contemporary approaches and emergent traditions. North-Holland: Elsevier Science Publishers B. V.

    Google Scholar 

  • Orlikowski, W. J., & Robey, D. (1991). Information technology and the structuring of organizations. Information Systems Research, 2(2), 143–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Orlikowski, W. J., & Scott, S. V. (2008). Sociomateriality: Challenging the separation of technology, work and organization. The Academy of Management Annals, 2(1), 433–474.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oswick, C., Fleming, P., & Hanlon, G. (2011). From borrowing to blending: Rethinking the processes of organizational theory-building. Academy of Management Review, 36(2), 318–337.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parsons, T., & Shils, E. A. (1962). Toward a general theory of action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pfeffer, J. (2014). The management theory morass: Modest proposals. In J. A. Miles (Ed.), New directions in management and organization theory (pp. 457–468). Newcastle, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Popper, K. R. (1959). The logic of scientific discovery. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Quine, W. V. (1951). Main trends in recent philosophy: Two Dogmas of empiricism. The Philosophical Review, 60(1), 20–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ramsey, F. P. (1965). Theories. In R. B. Braithwaite (Ed.), The foundations of mathematics and other logical essays (pp. 212–236). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ravitch, S. M., & Riggan, M. (2012). Reason and Rigor: How conceptual framework guides research. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Riemer, K., & Johnston, R. B. (2014). Rethinking the place of the artefact in IS using Heidegger’s analysis of equipment. European Journal of Information Systems, 23(3), 273–288.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Riemer, K., & Johnston, R. B. (2017). Clarifying ontological inseparability with Heidegger’s analysis of equipment. MIS Quarterly, 41(4), 1059–1081.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ritzer, G. (1990). Metatheorizing in sociology. Sociological Forum, 5(1), 3–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ritzer, G. (1996). The McDonaldization of society. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ritzer, G. (2001). Explorations in social theory: From metatheorizing to rationalization. London, UK: Sage.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Rockart, J. F., & DeLong, D. W. (1988). Executive support systems. Homewood, IL: Dow Jones-Irwin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenblueth, A., & Wiener, N. (1945). The role of models in science. Philosophy of Science, 12(4), 316–321.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rynes, S. (2002). From the editors. Academy of Management Journal, 45(2), 311–313.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salmon, W. C. (1998). Causality and explanation. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Sandberg, J., & Alvesson, M. (2020). Meanings of theory: Clarifying theory through typification. Journal of Management Studies. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12587

  • Sandberg, J., & Tsoukas, H. (2011). Grasping the logic of practice: Theorizing through practical rationality. Academy of Management Review, 36(2), 338–360.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sarker, S., & Lee, A. S. (2002). Using a positivist case research methodology to test three competing theories-in-use of business process redesign. Journal of the AIS, 2(1), p. Art. 7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schleiermacher, F. (1978). Hermeneutics: The handwritten manuscripts (H. Kimmerle, Ed., J. Duke, Trans.). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schutz, A. (1954). Concept and theory formation in the social sciences. Journal of Philosophy, 51(9), 257–273.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schutz, A. (1961). Collected papers vol. 1: The problem of social reality (M. Natanson, ed.). The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shepherd, D. A., & Suddaby, R. (2017). Theory building: A review and integration. Journal of Management, 43(1), 59–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shepherd, D. A., & Sutcliffe, K. M. (2011). Inductive top-down theorizing: A source of new theories of organization. Academy of Management Review, 36(2), 361–380.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shmueli, G. (2010). To explain or to predict? Statistical Science, 25(3), 289–310. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1351252

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siegel, E. (2016). Predictive analytics: The power to predict who will click, buy, lie, or die. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon, H. (1981). The sciences of the artificial. Boston, MA: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Siponen, M., & Klaavuniemi, T. (2019). How and why “theory” is often misunderstood in information systems literature. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS 2019), Munich, Germany Dec 15–18. Association for Information Systems (AIS).

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, A. (1776). An inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of nations. Glasgow: Edwin Cannan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steadman, I. (2013). Big data, language and the death of the theorist (Wired UK). Wired UK. Retrieved September 27, 2019, from http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2013-01/25/big-data-end-of-theory.

  • Straub, D. (2012). Editorial: Does MIS have native theories. MIS Quarterly, 36(2), iii–xii.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suddaby, R. (2014). Editor’s comments: Why theory? Academy of Management Review, 39(4), 407–411.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suddaby, R., Hardy, C., & Huy, Q. N. (2011). Where are the new theories of organization? Academy of Management Review, 36(2), 236–246.

    Google Scholar 

  • Suppe, F. (1977). The structure of scientific theories. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Suppe, F. (2000). Understanding scientific theories: An assessment of developments, 1969–1998. Philosophy of Science, 67(Supplement), S102–S115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suppes, P. (1967). What is scientific theory? In S. Morgenbesser (Ed.), Philosophy of science today (pp. 55–67). New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Susman, G. I., & Evered, R. D. (1978). An assessment of the scientific merits of action research. Administrative Science Quarterly, 23, 582–603.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sutton, R. I., & Staw, B. M. (1995). What theory is not. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(3), 371–384.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swedberg, R. (2014). The art of social theory. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • van de Ven, A. H. (1989). Nothing is quite so practical as a good theory. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 486–489.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walls, J. G., Widmeyer, G. R., & El Sawy, O. (1992). Building an information systems design theory for vigilant EIS. Information Systems Research, 3(1), 36–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walsham, G. (1995). Interpretive case studies in IS research: Nature and method. European Journal of Information Systems, 4(2), 74–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waltzman, R. (2017). The weaponization of information: The need for cognitive security. Santa Monica, CA: The RAND Corporation.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Weber, M. (1930). The protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism (R. H. Tawney, ed.). London: G. Allen & Unwin, Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weber, M. (1947). The theory of social and economic organizations. New York, NY: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weber, R. (2003). Editor’s comments: Theoretically speaking. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), iii–xii.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weber, R. (2006). Reach and grasp in the debate over the IS core: An empty hand? Journal of the AIS, 7(10), 703–713.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weber, R. (2012). Evaluating and developing theories in the information systems discipline. Journal of the AIS, 13(1), 1–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weick, K. E. (1989). Theory construction as disciplined imagination. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 516–531.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weick, K. E. (1995). What theory is not, theorizing Is. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(3), 385–390.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weick, K. E. (1999). Theory construction as disciplined reflexivity: Tradeoffs in the 90s. The Academy of Management Review, 24(4), 797–806. https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.1032006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whetten, D. A. (1989). What constitutes a theoretical contribution? Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 490–495.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whetten, D. A., Felin, T., & King, B. G. (2009). The practice of theory borrowing in organizational studies: Current issues and future directions. Journal of Management, 35(3), 537–563.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wisdom, J. O. (1972). Scientific theory: Empirical content, embedded ontology, and weltanschauung. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 33(1), 62–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • World Health Organization. (2020). Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) situation report—73.

    Google Scholar 

  • von Wright, G. H. (1971). Explanation and understanding. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yin, R. K. (1989). Case study research: Design and methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Management Studies, University of Minnesota Duluth, Duluth, MN, USA

    Nik Rushdi Hassan

  2. Department of Management, London School of Economics and Political Science, London, UK

    Leslie P. Willcocks

Authors
  1. Nik Rushdi Hassan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Leslie P. Willcocks
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nik Rushdi Hassan .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Management Studies, University of Minnesota Duluth, Duluth, MN, USA

    Nik Rushdi Hassan

  2. Department of Management, London School of Economics and Political Science, London, UK

    Leslie P. Willcocks

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Hassan, N.R., Willcocks, L.P. (2021). Introduction: Why Theory? (Mis)Understanding the Context and Rationale. In: Hassan, N.R., Willcocks, L.P. (eds) Advancing Information Systems Theories. Technology, Work and Globalization. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-64884-8_1

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation