Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

From ‘theory light’ to theorizing: a reaction to Avison and Malaurent

  • Commentary
  • Published:
Journal of Information Technology

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

Notes

  1. We also agree broadly with the 10 points raised by Avison and Malaurent as characteristics of theory light papers. We view these as characteristics of all good papers, regardless of their type of theorizing.

  2. Markus’ work is more problematic to critique on this level. On the one hand, she makes predictions about her data from each of the three theories that she seeks to test. So it would seem that she satisfies both the prediction and explanation goals. On the other hand, the theory that she supports (the interaction theory) is one that makes predictions of future behavior difficult since it acknowledges such behaviors as emergent and deeply rooted in context.

References

  • Alvesson, M. and Kärreman, D. (2007). Constructing Mystery: Empirical matters in theory development, Academy of Management Review 32 (4): 1265–1281.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alvesson, M. and Sandberg, J. (2013). Has Management Studies Lost Its Way? Ideas for More Imaginative and Innovative Research, Journal of Management Studies 50 (1): 128–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Applegate, L. and King, J. (1999). Rigor and Relevance: Careers on the line, MIS Quarterly 23 (1): 17–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Benbasat, I. and Zmud, R. (1999). Empirical Research in Information Systems: The practice of relevance, MIS Quarterly 23 (1): 3–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benbasat, I. and Zmud, R.W. (2003). The Identity Crisis Within the IS Discipline: Defining and communicating the discipline’s core properties, MIS Quarterly 27 (2): 183–194.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bitektine, A. (2007). Prospective Case Study Design: Qualitative method for deductive theory testing, Organizational Research Methods 11 (1): 160–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, D.T. (1990). The Role of Theory in Industrial and Organizational Psychology, in M.D. Dunnette and M. Hough (eds.) Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Palo Alto: Consulting Psychologists Press, pp. 39–74.

    Google Scholar 

  • Colquitt, J. and Zapata-Phelan, C. (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 

  • Darke, P., Shanks, G. and Broadbent, M. (1998). Successfully Completing Case Study Research: Combining rigour, relevance and pragmatism, Information Systems Journal 8 (4): 273–289.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davenport, T. and Markus, M. (1999). Rigor vs. Relevance Revisited: Response to Benbasat and Zmud, MIS Quarterly 23 (1): 19–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davison, R.M. and Martinsons, M.G. (2011). Methodological Practice and Policy for Organisationally and Socially Relevant IS Research: An inclusive–exclusive perspective, Journal of Information Technology 26 (4): 288–293.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Donaldson, L., Qiu, J. and Luo, B. (2013). For Rigour in Organizational Management Theory Research, Journal of Management Studies 50 (1): 153–172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dubé, L. and Paré, G. (2003). Rigor in Information Systems Positivist Case Research: Current practices, trends, and recommendations, MIS Quarterly 27 (4): 597–636.

    Google Scholar 

  • The Editors (2013). The Driver of New Theory Development in Management Studies: Imagination or rigour? Journal of Management Studies 50 (1): 2012–2013.

  • Elsbach, K., Sutton, R. and Whetten, D. (1999). Perspectives on Developing Management Theory, Circa 1999: Moving from shrill monologues to (relatively) tame dialogues, Academy of Management Review 24 (4): 627–633.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Galliers, R.D. (2011). In Celebration of Diversity in Information Systems Research, Journal of Information Technology 26 (4): 299–301.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gregor, S. (2006). The Nature of Theory in Information Systems, MIS Quarterly 30 (3): 611–642.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hambrick, D. (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 

  • Helfat, C.E. (2007). Stylized Facts, Empirical Research and Theory Development in Management, Strategic Organization 5 (2): 185–192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Langley, A. (1999). Strategies for Theorizing from Process Data, The Academy of Management Review 24 (4): 691.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, A. (1999). Rigor and Relevance in MIS Research: Beyond the approach of positivism alone, MIS Quarterly 23 (1): 29–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, A. (2011). IS Research Methods: Inclusive or exclusive?, Journal of Information Technology 26 (4): 296–298.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Markus, M.L. (1983). Power, Politics, and MIS Implementation, Communications of the ACM 26 (6): 430–444.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, D. (2007). Paradigm Prison, Or in Praise of Atheoretic Research, Strategic Organization 5 (2): 177–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mingers, J. (2004). Realizing Information Systems: Critical realism as an underpinning philosophy for information systems, Information and Organization 14 (2): 87–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Myers, M.D. (2011). Is There A Methodological Crisis?, Journal of Information Technology 26 (4): 294–295.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robey, D. (1996). Diversity In Information Systems Research: Threat, promise, and responsibility, Information Systems Research 7 (4): 400–408.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robey, D. and Markus, M. (1998). Beyond Rigor And Relevance: Producing consumable research about information systems, Information Resources Management Journal 11 (1): 7–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosemann, M. and Vessey, I. (2008). Toward Improving the Relevance of Information Systems Research to Practice: The role of applicability checks, MIS Quarterly 32 (1): 1–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schultze, U. (2000). A Confessional Account of An Ethnography About Knowledge Work, MIS Quarterly 24 (1): 3–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Straub, D. (2009). Why Top Journals Accept Your Paper, MIS Quarterly 33 (3): iii–x.

    Google Scholar 

  • Straub, D. and Ang, S. (2011). Rigor And Relevance In IS Research: Redefining the debate and a call for future research, MIS Quarterly 35 (1): iii–xi.

    Google Scholar 

  • Straub, D., Boudreau, M. and Gefen, D. (2004). Validation Guidelines For IS Positivist Research, Communications of the Association for Information Systems. Vol. 13, Article 24.

  • Sutton, R. and Staw, B. (1995). What Theory Is Not, Administrative Science Quarterly 40 (3): 371–384.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Urquhart, C. and Fernández, W. (2013). Using Grounded Theory Method in Information Systems: The researcher as blank slate and other myths, Journal of Information Technology 28 (3): 224–236.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Urquhart, C., Lehmann, H. and Myers, M.D. (2009). Putting the ‘Theory’ Back Into Grounded Theory: Guidelines for grounded theory studies in information systems, Information Systems Journal 20 (4): 357–381.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van de Ven, A. (1989). Nothing Is Quite So Practical As A Good Theory, Academy of Management Review 14 (4): 486–489.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weick, K.E. (1979). The Social Psychology of Organizing, 2nd edn, New York: McGraw Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weick, K.E. (1995). What Theory is Not, Theorizing Is, Administrative Science Quarterly 40 (3): 385.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Ivey Business School, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada

    Deborah R Compeau & Fernando Olivera

Authors
  1. Deborah R Compeau
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Fernando Olivera
    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

Compeau, D., Olivera, F. From ‘theory light’ to theorizing: a reaction to Avison and Malaurent. J Inf Technol 29, 346–349 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1057/jit.2014.20

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/jit.2014.20

Search

Navigation