Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Planning Your Research

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Scientific Research in Information Systems

Part of the book series: Progress in IS ((PROIS))

  • 3052 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter discusses how to plan a research project. It introduces ways in which a good research question can be identified and specified, and it introduces the different decisions during research design. After explaining the purposes of exploration, rationalization, and validation, the chapter discusses differences in different research methodologies.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 119.99
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

  • Alvesson, M., & Sandberg, J. (2011). Generating Research Questions Through Problematization. Academy of Management Review, 36(2), 247–271.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berente, N., Seidel, S., & Safadi, H. (2019). Data-Driven Computationally-Intensive Theory Development. Information Systems Research, 30(1), 50–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Branch, G., & Foster, C. A. (2018). Yes, Flat-Earthers Really Do Exist. Scientific American. Retrieved January 19, 2020 from https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/yes-flat-earthers-really-do-exist/

  • Centefelli, R. T., & Schwarz, A. (2011). Identifying and Testing the Inhibitors of Technology Usage Intentions. Information Systems Research, 22(4), 808–823.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chatman, J. A., & Flynn, F. J. (2005). Full-Cycle Micro-Organizational Behavior Research. Organization Science, 16(4), 434–447.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, D. R., & Emory, C. W. (1991). Business Research Methods (4th ed.). Richard D Irwin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, H. M. (1982). Scientific Guidelines for Conducting Integrative Research Reviews. Review of Educational Research, 52(2), 291–302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches (3rd ed.). Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischer, C., & Gregor, S. (2020). Forms of Reasoning in the Design Science Research Process. In H. Jain, A. P. Sinha, & P. Vitharana (Eds.), Service-Oriented Perspectives in Design Science Research: DESRIST 2011 (Vol. 6629, pp. 17–31). Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Gable, G. G. (1994). Integrating Case Study and Survey Research Methods: An Example in Information Systems. European Journal of Information Systems, 3(2), 112–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grant, A. M., & Pollock, T. G. (2011). Publishing in AMJ—Part 3: Setting the Hook. Academy of Management Journal, 54(5), 873–879.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan, A. (1998/1964). The Conduct of Inquiry: Methodology for Behavioral Science. Transaction Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Larsen, K. R. T., & Eargle, D. (2015). Theories Used in IS Research Wiki. University of Colorado. Retrieved May 28, 2021 from https://is.theorizeit.org/

  • Lazer, D., Pentland, A. P., Adamic, L. A., Aral, S., Barabási, A.-L., Brewer, D., Christakis, N., Contractor, N., Fowler, J., Gutmann, M., Jebara, T., King, G., Macy, M., Roy, D., & Van Alstyne, M. (2009). Computational Social Science. Science, 323(5915), 721–723.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, A. S. (1991). Integrating Positivist and Interpretive Approaches to Organizational Research. Organization Science, 2(4), 342–365.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leedy, P. D., & Ormrod, J. E. (2001). Practical Research: Planning and Design (7th ed.). Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mertens, W., & Recker, J. (2020). New Guidelines for Null Hypothesis Significance Testing in Hypothetico-Deductive IS Research. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 21(4), 1072–1102. https://doi.org/10.17705/1jais.00629

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paré, G., Trudel, M.-C., Jaana, M., & Kitsiou, S. (2015). Synthesizing Information Systems Knowledge: A Typology of Literature Reviews. Information & Management, 52(2), 183–199.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peirce, C. S. (1958). On the Logic of Drawing History from Ancient Documents Especially from Testimonies. In A. W. Burks (Ed.), Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce, Volumes VII and VIII: Science and Philosophy and Reviews, Correspondence and Bibliography (pp. 162–255). Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pentland, B. T., Liu, P., Kremser, W., & Hærem, T. (2020). The Dynamics of Drift in Digitized Processes. MIS Quarterly, 44(1), 19–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Recker, J., Indulska, M., Rosemann, M., & Green, P. (2010). The Ontological Deficiencies of Process Modeling in Practice. European Journal of Information Systems, 19(5), 501–525.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Recker, J., Rosemann, M., Green, P., & Indulska, M. (2011). Do Ontological Deficiencies in Modeling Grammars Matter? MIS Quarterly, 35(1), 57–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Recker, J., Rosemann, M., Indulska, M., & Green, P. (2009). Business Process Modeling: A Comparative Analysis. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 10(4), 333–363.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strange, J. R., & Strange, S. M. (1972). How to Read a Scientific Research Report. In J. R. Strange & S. M. Strange (Eds.), Reading for Meaning in College and After (pp. 54–66). Brooks/Cole Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Templier, M., & Paré, G. (2015). A Framework for Guiding and Evaluating Literature Reviews. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 37(6), 112–137.

    Google Scholar 

  • Venkatesh, V., Brown, S. A., & Bala, H. (2013). Bridging the Qualitative-Quantitative Divide: Guidelines for Conducting Mixed Methods Research in Information Systems. MIS Quarterly, 37(1), 21–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User Acceptance of Information Technology: Toward a Unified View. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425–478.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weber, R. (2003). Editor’s Comments: The Problem of the Problem. MIS Quarterly, 27(1), iii–ix.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Webster, J., & Watson, R. T. (2002). Analyzing the Past to Prepare for the Future: Writing a Literature Review. MIS Quarterly, 26(2), xiii–xxiii.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolcott, H. F. (2001). Writing up Qualitative Research (2nd ed.). Sage.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany

    Jan Recker

Authors
  1. Jan Recker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Recker, J. (2021). Planning Your Research. In: Scientific Research in Information Systems. Progress in IS. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-85436-2_3

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation