Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Understanding Intellectual Contributions

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Research Design in Business and Management

  • 3005 Accesses

Abstract

As opposed to many claims, theory and practice are not two different, independent areas, but both are essential contributors to our ability to understand and act in the real-life world. Indeed, every action is guided by an individual, implicit, or explicit theory of how the world works. Every action and its effects are phenomena that can create, elaborate, and confirm theories. In fact, theory improvements or refinements are the intellectual contributions that add to the existing body of knowledge.

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 69.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Alvesson, M. (2004). Reflexive methodology: New vistas for qualitative research.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cambridge University Press. (n.d.). Theory. In Cambridge dictionary. Retrieved May 19, 2021, from https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/theory.

  • Campbell, J. P. (1990). The role of theory in industrial and organizational psychology. In M. D. Dunnette, L. M. Hough, & H. C. Triandis (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (2nd ed., pp. 39–73). Consulting Psychologists Press.

    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 

  • Cushing, B. E. (1990). Frameworks, paradigms and scientific research in management information systems. Journal of Information Systems, (4)2, 38–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, G. B., & Olson, M. H. (1985). Management information systems: Conceptual foundations, structure and development (2nd ed.). McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R., & Warshaw, P. (1989). User Acceptance of Computer Technology: A Comparison of Two Theoretical Models. Management Science,35(8), 982–1003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Delbridge, R., & Fiss, P. C. (2013). Editors’ comments: Styles of theorizing and the social organization of knowledge. Academy of Management Review,38, 325–331.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eisenhardt, K. M., & Graebner, M. E. (2007). Theory building from cases: Opportunities and challenges. Academy of Management Journal,50(1), 25–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elliot, S., & Avison, D. (2005). Discipline of informations systems. In D. Avison & J. Pries-Heje (Eds.), Research in IS: A handbook for research supervisors and their students. Elsevier Science.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gioia, D. A., Corley, K. G., & Hamilton, A. L. (2013). Seeking qualitative rigor in inductive research. Organizational Research Methods,16(1), 15–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gregor, S. (2006). The nature of theory in information systems. Management Information Systems Quarterly, 30(3).

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan, A. (1998). The conduct of inquiry. Methodology for behavioral science. In A. Kaplan (Eds.), The conduct of inquiry. Methodology for behavioral science. Transaction Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keating, P. J. (1995). A framework for classifying and evaluating the theoretical contributions of case research in management accounting. Journal of Management Accounting Research 7 Fall, 66–87.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kerlinger, F. P. (1986). Foundations of behavioral research. Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

    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 

  • Levasseur, R. E. (2001). People skills: Change Management tools—Lewin’s change model. Interfaces; Jul/Aug 2001; ABI/INFORM Research, 31(4), 71–73.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nagel, E. (1979). The structure of science. Hackett Publishing Co.

    Google Scholar 

  • Orlikowski, W. J., & Baroudi, J. J. (1991). Studying information technology in organizations: Research approaches and assumptions. Information Systems Research,2(1), 1–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Presthus, W., & Munkvold, B. E. (2016). How to frame your contribution to knowledge? A guide for junior researchers in information systems. NOKOBIT, 24(1).

    Google Scholar 

  • Ridder, H.-G. (2017). The theory contribution of case study research designs. Business Research,10(2), 281–305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (1996). Research methods for business students. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/bef028d7d7fcb4705c24451304b089f4912920d4.

  • Suddaby, R. (2010). Editor’s comment: Construct clarities in theories of management and organizations. The Academy of Management Review,35(3), 346–357.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Te’eni, D., Rowe, R., Ågerfalk, P. J., & Lee, J. S. (2015). Publishing and getting published in EJIS: Marshaling contributions for a diversity of genres. European Journal of Information Systems, 24, 559–568.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., & Smart, P. (2003). Towards a methodology for developing evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. British Journal of Management,14(3), 207–222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weber, R. (2012). Evaluating and developing theories in the information systems discipline. Journal of the Association for Information Systems,13(1), 2–30.

    Article  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yin, R. K. (2014). Case study research. Design and methods (5th ed.). SAGE.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Wirtschaft/IFZ – Campus Zug-Rotkreuz, Hochschule Luzern, Zug-Rotkreuz, Zug , Switzerland

    Stefan Hunziker & Michael Blankenagel

Authors
  1. Stefan Hunziker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Michael Blankenagel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stefan Hunziker .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Hunziker, S., Blankenagel, M. (2021). Understanding Intellectual Contributions. In: Research Design in Business and Management. Springer Gabler, Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-34357-6_2

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-34357-6_2

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer Gabler, Wiesbaden

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-658-34356-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-658-34357-6

  • eBook Packages: Business and Economics (German Language)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation