Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Theoretical perspectives in IS research: from variance and process to conceptual latitude and conceptual fit

  • Research Essay
  • Published:
European Journal of Information Systems

Abstract

There has been growing interest in theory building in Information Systems (IS) research. We extend this literature by examining theory building perspectives. We define a perspective as a researcher’s choice of the types of concepts and relationships used to construct a theory, and we examine three perspectives – process, variance, and systems. We contribute by clarifying these perspectives and explaining how they can be used more flexibly in future research. We illustrate the value of this more flexible approach by showing how researchers can use different theoretical perspectives to critique and extend an existing theoretical model (in our case, the IS Success Model). Overall, we suggest a shift from the traditional process-variance dichotomy to a broader view defined by conceptual latitude (the types of concepts and relationships available) and conceptual fit (the types of concepts and relationships appropriate for a given study). We explain why this shift should help researchers as they engage in the knowledge generation process.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abbott A (1983) Sequences of social events. Historical Methods 16 (4), 129–147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Abbott A (1988) Transcending general linear reality. Sociological Theory 6 (2), 169–186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Abdel-Hamid TK (1988) The economics of software quality assurance: a simulation-based case study. MIS Quarterly 12 (3), 395–411.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Abell P (1984) Comparative narratives. Journal for the Theory of Social Behavior 14 (3), 309–331.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ahituv N (1987) A meta-model of information flow – a tool to support information systems theory. Communications of the Associating for Computing Machinery 30 (9), 781–791.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ashby R (1958) Requisite variety and implications for control of complex systems. Cybernetica 1 (2), 83–99.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Beaudry A and Pinsonneault A (2005) Understanding user responses to information technology: a coping model of user adaptation. MIS Quarterly 29 (3), 493–524.

    Google Scholar 

  • Becker HS (1998) Tricks of the Trade: How to Think About your Research While you’re Doing It. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Blalock HM (1969) Theory Construction: From Verbal to Mathematical Formulations. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boudreau M-C and Robey D (2005) Enacting integrated information technology: a human agency perspective. Organization Science 16 (1), 3–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boulding KE (1956) General systems theory: the skeleton of science. Management Science 2 (3), 197–208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bruner J (1991) The narrative construction of reality. Critical Inquiry 18 (1), 1–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bunge M (1977) Treatise on Basic Philosophy: Volume 3: Ontology 1: The Furniture of the World. Reidel, Boston.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Burns T and Stalker GM (1994) The Management of Innovation. Tavistock, London.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Burton-Jones A and Gallivan MJ (2007) Towards a deeper understanding of system usage in organizations: a multilevel perspective. MIS Quarterly 31 (4), 657–679.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burton-Jones A and Straub D (2006) Reconceptualizing system usage. Information Systems Research 17 (1), 38–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell DT (1995) The postpositivist, nonfoundational, hermeneutic epistemology exemplified in the works of Donald W. Fiske. In Personality Research, Methods, and Theory: A Festschrift Honoring (Fiske DW, Shrout PE and Fiske ST, Eds), pp 145–157, Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chakraborty S, Sarker S and Sarker S (2010) An exploration into the process of requirements elicitation: a grounded approach. Journal of the Association for Information Systems 11 (4), 212–249.

    Google Scholar 

  • Checkland P (1999) Systems Thinking, Systems Practice. John Wiley & Sons Ltd, Chichester, UK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Churchman CW (1968) The Systems Approach. Dell Publishing Company, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark TD, Jones MC and Armstrong CP (2007) The dynamic structure of management support systems: theory development, research focus, and direction. MIS Quarterly 31 (3), 579–615.

    Google Scholar 

  • Corley KG and Gioia DA (2011) Building theory about theory building: what constitutes a theoretical contribution? Academy of Management Review 36 (1), 12–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daft RL (1995) Why I recommend that your manuscript be rejected and what you can do about it. In Publishing in the Organizational Sciences (Cummings LL and Frost PJ, Eds), pp 164–182, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Davis F (1989) Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and end user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly 13 (3), 318–339.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeLone WH and McLean ER (1992) Information systems success: the quest for the dependent variable. Information Systems Research 3 (1), 60–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeLone WH and McLean ER (2003) The DeLone and McLean model of information systems success: a ten-year review. Journal of Management Information Systems 19 (4), 9–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dilthey W (1988) An Introduction to Human Sciences. Wayne State University, Detroit, MI.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dubin R (1978) Theory Building (Revised Edition). The Free Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edmondson AC and McManus SE (2007) Methodological fit in management field research. Academy of Management Review 32 (4), 1155–1179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edstrom O (1973) Man-Computer Decision Making. Gothenburg Studies in Business Administration, Goteburg.

    Google Scholar 

  • El Sawy OA, Malhotra A, Park YK and Pavlou PA (2010) Seeking the configurations of digital ecodynamics: it takes three to tango. Information Systems Research 21 (4), 835–848.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Emirbayer M (1997) Manifesto for a relational sociology. American Journal of Sociology 103 (2), 281–317.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Forrester JW (1968) Principles of Systems, (Second Preliminary Edition) MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Furneaux B and Wade MR (2011) An exploration of organizational level information systems discontinuance intentions. MIS Quarterly 35 (3), 573–598.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Garud R and Kumaraswamy A (2005) Vicious and virtuous circles in the management of knowledge: the case of infosys technologies. MIS Quarterly 29 (1), 9–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giddens A (1984) The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glaser BG and Strauss AL (1967) The Discovery of Grounded Theory. Aldine, Chicago.

    Google Scholar 

  • Godfrey-Smith P (2003) Theory and Reality: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Science. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Goodman PS (2000) Missing Organizational Linkages: Tools for Cross-Level Research. Sage, California.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Gregor S and Jones D (2007) The anatomy of a design theory. Journal of the Association for Information Systems 8 (5), 312–335.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grover V, Lyytinen K, Srinivasan A and Tan BCY (2008) Contributing to rigorous and forward thinking explanatory theory. Journal of the Association for Information Systems 9 (2), 40–47.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harris DH (Ed) (1994) Organizational Linkages: Understanding the Productivity Paradox. National Academy Press, Washington DC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heales J (2002) A model of factors affecting an information system’s change in state. Journal of Software Maintenance 14 (6), 409–427.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heidegger M (1953) Being and Time. State University of New York Press, Albany.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heisenberg W (1958) Physics and Philosophy. Harper Collins, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hillman A (2011) Editor’s comments: what is the future of theory? Academy of Management Review 36 (4), 606–608.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hirschheim R, Klein H and Lyytinen K (1995) Information Systems Development and Data Modeling: Conceptual and Philosophical Foundations. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hovorka DS, Germonprez M and Larsen KRT (2008) Explanation in information systems. Information Systems Journal 18 (1), 23–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jaccard J and Jacoby J (2010) Theory Construction and Model-Building Skills. Guilford Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kant I (1781) The Critique of Pure Reason. Palgrave, Macmillan, translated by N. Kemp Smith, 1933 London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kanungo S (2003) Using systems dynamics to operationalize process theory in information systems research. In Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on Information Systems (March ST, Massey AP and DeGross J Eds), 15–18 December, pp 450–463, Association for Information Systems, Seattle, WA.

  • Kaplan A (1964/1998) The Conduct of Inquiry: Methodology for Behavioral Science, Transaction edition 1998 (Originally published in 1964), Transaction Publishers, Piscataway, NJ.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klein HK and Myers MD (1999) A set of principles for conducting and evaluating interpretive field studies in information systems. MIS Quarterly 23 (1), 67–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klir GJ (1991) Facets of Systems Science. Plenum Press, New York.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kozlowski SWJ and Klein KJ (Eds) (2000) A multilevel approach to theory and research in organizations. In Multilevel Theory, Research, and Methods in Organizations, pp 3–90, Jossey-Bass, California.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn TS (1996) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 3rd edn, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lackoff G (1987) Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind. Chicago University Press, Chicago.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lamb R and Kling R (2003) Reconceptualizing users as social actors in information systems research. MIS Quarterly 27 (2), 197–235.

    Google Scholar 

  • Langefors B and Samuelson K (1975) Information and Data in Systems. Petrocelly/Charter, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Langley A (1999) Strategies for theorizing from process data. Academy of Management Review 24 (4), 691–710.

    Google Scholar 

  • Langley A (2009) Studying processes in and around organizations. In The Sage Handbook of Organizational Research Methods (Buchanan DA and Bryman A, Eds), pp 409–429, Sage, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Langley A and Abdallah C (2011) Templates and turns in qualitative studies in strategy and management. In Building Methodological Bridges: Research Methodology in Strategy and Management (Bergh DD and Ketchen DJ, Eds), pp 201–235, Emerald Group Publishing, Bingley, UK.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Lee AS (1991) Integrating positivist and interpretive approaches to organizational research. Organization Science 2 (4), 342–365.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee AS (2004) Thinking about social theory and philosophy for information systems. In Social Theory and Philosophy for Information Systems (Mingers J and Willcocks L, Eds), pp 1–26, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, UK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lucas HC (1974) Why Information Systems Fail. Columbia University Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Markman AB and Gentner D (2001) Thinking. Annual Review of Psychology 52, pp 223–247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Markus ML and Saunders C (2007) Looking for a few good concepts … And theories … For the information systems field. MIS Quarterly 31 (1), iii–vi.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mattessich R (1978) Instrumental Reasoning and Systems Methodology: An Epistemology of the Applied and Social Sciences. D. Reidel Publishing Company, Dordrecht, the Netherlands.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Maxwell JA (1992) Understanding validity in qualitative research. Harvard Educational Review 62 (3), 279–299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Medin DL and Atran S (2004) The native mind: biological categorization and reasoning in development and across cultures. Psychological Review 111 (4), 960–983.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer AD, Tsui AS and Hinings CR (1993) Configurational approaches to organizational analysis. Academy of Management Journal 36 (6), 1175–1195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mohr LB (1982) Explaining Organizational Behavior. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nagel E (1979) The Structure of Science: Problems in the Logic of Scientific Explanation. Hackett Publishing Company, Indianapolis, IN.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nan N (2011) Capturing bottom-up it use processes: a complex adaptive systems model. MIS Quarterly 35 (2), 505–532.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newman M and Robey D (1992) A social process model of user-analyst relationships. MIS Quarterly 16 (2), 249–266.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Okhuysen G and Bonardi J-P (2011) Editor’s comments: the challenges of building theory by combining lenses. Academy of Management Review 36 (1), 6–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pare G, Bourdeau S, Marsan J, Nach H and Shuraida S (2008) Re-examining the causal structure of information technology impact research. European Journal of Information Systems 17 (4), 403–416.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parsons J and Wand Y (2008) A question of class. Nature 455 (7216), 1040–1041.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pentland BT (1999) Building process theory with narrative: from description to explanation. Academy of Management Review 24 (4), 711–724.

    Google Scholar 

  • Polkinghorne DE (1988) Narrative Knowing and the Human Sciences. SUNY Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Poole MS, Van de Ven AH, Dooley K and Holmes ME (2000) Organizational Change and Innovation Processes. Oxford University Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Porra J (1999) Colonial systems. Information Systems Research 10 (1), 38–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ramiller NC and Pentland BT (2009) Management implications in information systems research: the untold story. Journal of the Association for Information Systems 10 (6), 474–494.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rescher N (1996) Process Metaphysics: An Introduction to Process Philosophy. State University of New York, Albany, NY.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ricoeur P (1974) The Conflict of Interpretations: Essays in Hermeneutics. Northwestern University Press, Evanston, IL.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rivard S and Lapointe L (2010) A cybernetic theory of the impact of implementors’ actions on user resistance to information technology implementation. In Proceedings of the 43 rd Hawaii International Conference on Systems Sciences, IEEE (Sprague RH Ed), Hawaii, pp. 1–10.

  • Rowe F (2014) What literature review is not: diversity, boundaries and recommendations. European Journal of Information Systems 23 (3), 241–255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sabherwal R, Hirschheim R and Goles T (2001) The dynamics of alignment: insights from a punctuated equilibrium model. Organization Science 12 (2), 179–197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salmon WC (1998) Causality and Explanation. Oxford University Press, New York.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Sarker S and Valacich JS (2010) An alternative to methodological individualism: a non-reductionist approach to studying technology adoption by groups. MIS Quarterly 34 (4), 779–808.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schutz A (1973) Concept and theory formation in the social sciences. In Collected Papers (Natanson M, Ed), pp 48–66, Martinus Nijhoff, the Hague.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwandt TA (1997) Qualitative Inquiry: A Dictionary of Terms. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Searle JR (2006) Social ontology. Anthropological Theory 6 (1), 12–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seddon PB (1997) A respecification and extension of the DeLone and McLean model of IS success. Information Systems Research 8 (3), 240–253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shapira Z (2011) ‘I’ve got a theory paper—do you?’ Conceptual, empirical, and theoretical contributions to knowledge in the organizational sciences. Organization Science 22 (5), 1312–1321.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shaw T and Jarvenpaa SL (1997) Process models in information systems. In Information Systems and Qualitative Research (Lee AS, Liebenau J and Degross JL, Eds), pp 70–100, Chapman and Hall, London.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Shoemaker PJ, Tankard JW and Lasorsa DL (2004) How to Build Social Science Theories. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Smith KG and Hitt MA (Eds) (2005) Great Minds in Management: The Proces of Theory Development. Oxford University Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Straub D (2012) Does MIS have native theory? MIS Quarterly 36 (2), iii–xii.

    Google Scholar 

  • Straub DW, Ang S and Evaristo R (1994) Normative standards for IS research. DataBase for Advances in Information Systems 25 (1), 21–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suppe F (Ed) (1977) The search for philosophical understanding of scientific theories. In The Structure of Scientific Theories, pp 3–241, University of Illinois Press, Urbana.

    Google Scholar 

  • Suppe F (1998) Theories, scientific. In Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Craig E, Ed), pp 344–355, Routledge, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sutton RI and Staw BM (1995) What theory is not. Administrative Science Quarterly 40 (3), 371–384.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swanson EB and Beath CM (1989) Maintaining Information Systems in Organization. John Wiley and Sons, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tate M, Sedera D, Mclean E and Burton-Jones A (2014) Information systems success research: the twenty year update? Panel report from PACIS 2011 Communications of the Association for Information Systems 34(article 64), 1235–1246.

  • Thompson M (2011) Ontological shift or ontological drift? Reality claims, epistemological frameworks, and theory generation in organization studies. Academy of Management Review 36 (4), 754–773.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trist EL (1981) The evolution of socio-technical systems. In Perspectives on Organization Design and Behavior (Van de Ven AH and Joyce WF, Eds), pp 1–75, Wiley, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Truex D, Holmstrom J and Keil M (2006) Theorizing in information systems research: a reflexive analysis of the adaptation of theory in information systems research. Journal of the Association for Information Systems 7 (12), 797–821.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van de Ven A (2007) Engaged Scholarship: A Guide for Organizational and Social Research. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Gigch JP and Le Moigne JL (1989) A paradigmatic approach to the discipline of information systems. Behavioral Science 34 (2), 128–147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Maanen J, Sorensen JB and Mitchell TR (2007) The interplay between theory and method. Academy of Management Review 32 (4), 1145–1154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Venkatesh V, Morris MG, Davis GB and Davis FD (2003) User acceptance of information technology: toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly 27 (3), 425–478.

    Google Scholar 

  • von Bertalanffy L. (1968) General Systems Theory. Braziller, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walsham G (1995) The emergence of intepretivism in IS research. Information Systems Research 6 (4), 376–394.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weber R (1987) Toward a theory of artifacts: a paradigmatic basis for information systems research. Journal of Information Systems 1 (2), 3–19.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Webster J and Watson RT (2002) Analyzing the past to prepare for the future: writing a literature review. MIS Quarterly 26 (2), xiii–xxiii.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weick KE (1996) Drop your tools: an allegory for organization studies. Administrative Science Quarterly 41 (2), 303–313.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weick KE (2007) The generative properties of richness. Academy of Management Journal 50 (1), 14–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wheeler BC (2002) Nebic: a dynamic capabilities theory for assessing net-enablement. Information Systems Research 13 (2), 125–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zacks JM and Tversky B (2001) Event structure in perception and conception. Psychological Bulletin 127 (1), 3–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

For helpful comments on earlier versions of this paper, we thank the EJIS review team, Omar El Sawy, Guy Gable, Shirley Gregor, Pertti Jarvinen, Allen Lee, Lynne Markus, Gaetan Mourmant, Frantz Rowe, Peter Seddon, Mikko Siponen, Iris Vessey, Isabelle Walsh, and participants in seminars at HEC Montréal, the University of British Columbia, Washington State University, and the University of Queensland. The first author thanks the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada and the Australian Research Council (FT130100942) for support.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. UQ Business School, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia

    Andrew Burton-Jones

  2. J. Mack Robinson School of Business, Georgia State University, U.S.A.

    Ephraim R McLean

  3. Antai College of Economics and Management, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, China

    Emmanuel Monod

Authors
  1. Andrew Burton-Jones
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ephraim R McLean
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Emmanuel Monod
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Burton-Jones, A., McLean, E. & Monod, E. Theoretical perspectives in IS research: from variance and process to conceptual latitude and conceptual fit. Eur J Inf Syst 24, 664–679 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1057/ejis.2014.31

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/ejis.2014.31

Keywords

Search

Navigation