Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Is theory king?: questioning the theory fetish in information systems

  • Debates and Perspectives
  • Published:
Journal of Information Technology

Abstract

This paper suggests that there is too much emphasis on the requirement for theory use and theory building in qualitative research published in our leading journals. We discuss six concerns that we have that relate to this high status of theory in such papers. We argue for what we refer to as ‘theory light’ papers where theory plays no significant part in the paper and the contribution lies elsewhere, for example, new arguments, facts, patterns or relationships. Some examples of theory light papers (and research) are provided from other disciplines and one exemplar information systems paper is studied in depth. We see these papers as equally worthy as those which demonstrate the applicability and predictive qualities of theory use as well as the potential of theory building. We propose a list of 10 questions that authors and reviewers might ask themselves when writing or reviewing such theory light papers. The more demanding role of the reader is also discussed along with the requirement for editorial teams to adapt. We suggest that the requirement for a contribution to theory would be replaced with the requirement that any journal paper has a high potential for stimulating research that will impact on information systems theory and/or practice.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. In this paper we draw many examples and editorial statements from MIS Quarterly. It is generally regarded as the leading research journal in IS judged by indicators such as impact factor and consistent position in the various journal rankings. We are also grateful that their editorial team, viewed through editorial statements, have been open about their policies and practices.

References

  • Agarwal, R. and Lucas, Jr H. C. (2005). The Information Systems Identity Crisis: Focusing on high-visibility and high-impact research, MIS Quarterly 29 (3): 381–398.

    Google Scholar 

  • AIS (2014). Senior Scholars’ Basket of Journals [WWW document] http://aisnet.org/?page=SeniorScholarBasket&hhSearchTerms=%22basket%22 (accessed 2 March 2014).

  • Akhlaghpour, S., Wu, J., Lapointe, L. and Pinsonneault, A. (2013). The Ongoing Quest for the IT Artifact: Looking back, moving forward, Journal of Information Technology 28 (2): 150–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alvesson, M. and Sköldberg, K. (2009). Reflexive Methodology: New vistas for qualitative research, London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • AMD (2014). AMD Founding Editorial Team Round Table Discussion [WWW document] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kBCdL2TULGo&feature=share&list=PLU-uzN0D6ikzDJIsuzzNRJ4uV9dJcQxYy (accessed 2 March 2014).

  • AOM (living). Academy of Management Discoveries [WWW document] http://aom.org/amd/ (accessed 2 March 2014).

  • Applegate, L. (1999). Rigor and relevance in management information systems, MIS Quarterly 23 (1): 1–2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Avison, D. and Wood-Harper, A. (1990). Multiview: An exploration in information systems development, Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Avison, D. E. (2012). From espoused values to action: A commentary on ‘are we making a better world with ICTs’, Journal of Information Technology 27 (2): 104–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Avison, D. E., Lau, F., Myers, M. D. and Nielsen, P. A. (1999). Action research, Communications of the ACM 42 (1): 94–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Avison, D. E. and Myers, M. D. (1995). Information systems and anthropology: An anthropological perspective on IT and organizational culture, Information Technology & People 8 (3): 43–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Avital, M., Mathiassen, L. and Schultze, U. (2012). Call for Papers: European Journal of Information Systems Special Issue on Alternative Genres [WWW document] http://www.palgrave-journals.com/ejis/ejis_cfp_alternative_genres.pdf (accessed 14 April 2013).

  • Baskerville, R. and Myers, M. D. (2009). Fashion waves in information systems research and practice, MIS Quarterly 33 (4): 647–662.

    Google Scholar 

  • Becker, H. S. (1996). The epistemology of qualitative research, in R. Jessor, A. Colby and R. A. Shweder (eds.) Ethnography and Human Development: Context and Meaning in Social Inquiry, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 53–71.

    Google Scholar 

  • Behar, R. (1996). The Vulnerable Observer: Anthropology that breaks your heart, Boston, MA: Beacon Press.

    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 

  • Blake, W. (1982). Annotations to Sir Joshua Reynolds’s disclosures (Original work published 1808), in D. Erdman (ed.) The Complete Poetry and Prose of William Blake, Los Angeles: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a Theory of Practice, Cambridge: CUP.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Cecez-Kecmanovic, D., Galliers, R. D., Henfridsson, O., Newell, S. and Vidgen, R. (2011). Call for Papers MISQ Special Issue on Sociomateriality of Information Systems and Organizing [WWW document] http://www.misq.org/skin/frontend/default/misq/pdf/CurrentCalls/SI_Sociomateriality.pdf (accessed 14 April 2013).

  • Corbin, J. M. and Strauss, A. L. (1990). Grounded theory research: Procedures, canons, and evaluative criteria, Qualitative Sociology 13 (1): 3–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DiMaggio, P. J. (1995). Comments on “what theory is not”, Administrative Science Quarterly 40 (3): 391–397.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eco, U. (1984). The Role of the Reader: Explorations in the semiotics of texts, Indiana: Indiana University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research, Academy of Management Review 14 (4): 532–550.

    Google Scholar 

  • Faccio, M., Masulis, R. W. and McConnell, J. (2006). Political connections and corporate bailouts, The Journal of Finance 61 (6): 2597–2635.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feyerabend, P. K. (1993). Against Method, New York, NY: Verso.

    Google Scholar 

  • Finlay, L. (2002). Negotiating the swamp: The opportunity and challenge of reflexivity in research practice, Qualitative Research 2 (2): 209–230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giddens, A. (1984). The Constitution of Society: Outline of the theory of structuration, Cambridge: Polity.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glaser, B. G. and Strauss, A. L. (2009). The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for qualitative research, Piscataway, NJ: Transaction Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goffman, E. (1968). Asylums: Essays on the social situation of mental patients and other inmates, New Brunswick, NJ: Aldine Transaction.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goffman, E. (2009). Stigma: Notes on the management of spoiled identity, New York, NY: Simon and Schuster.

    Google Scholar 

  • Golden-Biddle, K. and Locke, K. (1993). Appealing work: An investigation of how ethnographic texts convince, Organization Science 4 (4): 595–616.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gopal, A. and Prasad, P. (2000). Understanding GDSS in symbolic context: Shifting the focus from technology to interaction, MIS Quarterly 24 (3): 509–546.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    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 

  • Helfat, C. E. (2007). Stylized Facts, empirical research and theory development in management, Strategic Organization 5 (2): 185–192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hughes, R. (2000). Shock of the New. Television Series: BBC/Time-Life.

    Google Scholar 

  • JAIS (2012). CFP JAIS Theory Development Workshop ICIS 2012 [WWW document] http://www.aisnet.org/ais_lists/public_lists_archive/2012-July/006947.html (accessed 14 November 2013).

  • Jones, M. R. and Karsten, H. (2008). Giddens’s structuration theory and information systems research, MIS Quarterly 32 (1): 127–157.

    Google Scholar 

  • King, J. L. and Lyytinen, K. (2006). Information Systems: The state of the field, Chichester: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klein, H. K. and Rowe, F. (2008). Marshaling the Professional Experience of Doctoral Students: A contribution to the practical relevance debate, MIS Quarterly 32 (4): 675–686.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lacity, M. C., Willcocks, L. P. and Khan, S. (2011). Beyond transaction cost economics: Towards an endogenous theory of information technology outsourcing, Journal of Strategic Information Systems 20 (2): 139–157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, A. S., Myers, M., Paré, G. and Urquhart, C. U. (2000). Three perspectives: If Markus’ 1983 classic study, “power, politics, and MIS implementation,” were being reviewed today, in Proceedings of International Conference in Information Systems (Brisbane), Atlanta, GA: AIS.

  • Lewin, K. (1945). The research center for group dynamics at Massachusetts institute of technology, Sociometry 8 (2): 126–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindblom, C. E. (1987). Alternatives to validity some thoughts suggested by Campbell’s guidelines, Science Communication 8 (3): 509–520.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Markus, M. (1997). The qualitative difference in information systems research and practice, in A. S. Lee, J. Liebenau and J. I. DeGross (eds.) Information Systems and Qualitative Research, London: Chapman & Hall, pp. 11–27.

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitev, N. (2009). In and out of actor-network theory: A necessary but insufficient journey, Information Technology & People 22 (1): 9–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mumford, E. (2006). The story of socio-technical design: Reflections on its successes, failures and potential, Information Systems Journal 16 (4): 317–342.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Myers, M. D. and Klein, H. K. (2011). A set of principles for conducting critical research in information systems, MIS Quarterly 35 (1): 17–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, K. M., Nadkarni, S., Narayanan, V. and Ghods, M. (2000). Understanding software operations support expertise: A revealed causal mapping approach, MIS Quarterly 24 (3): 475–507.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Orlikowski, W. and Iacono, C. (2001). Desperately seeking the ‘IT’ in IT research: A call to theorizing the IT artifact, Infomation Systems Research 12 (2): 121–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Orlikowski, W. J. and Barley, S. R. (2001). Technology and institutions: What can research on information technology and research on organizations learn from each other? MIS Quarterly 25 (2): 145–165.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pozzebon, M. and Pinsonneault, A. (2005). Challenges in conducting empirical work using structuration theory: Learning from IT research, Organization Studies 26 (9): 1353–1376.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schultze, U. (2000). A confessional account of an ethnography about knowledge work, MIS Quarterly 24 (1): 3–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seidel, S. and Urquhart, C. (2013). On emergence and forcing in information systems grounded theory studies: The case of Strauss and Corbin, Journal of Information Technology 28 (3): 237–260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stake, R. (2000). Case studies, in N. K. Denzin and Y. S. Lincoln (eds.) Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 435–454.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stake, R. E. (1995). The Art of Case Study Research, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Straub, D. (2012). Editor’s comments: Does MIS have native theories? MIS Quarterly 36 (2): iii–xii.

    Google Scholar 

  • Straub, D. and Ang, S. (2011). Editor’s comments: 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. W. (2008). Editor’s comments: Type II reviewing errors and the search for exciting papers, MIS Quarterly 32 (2): v–vii.

    Google Scholar 

  • Straub, D. W. (2009). Editor's Comments: Why top journals accept your paper, MIS Quarterly 33 (3): iii–ix.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, G. and James, D. (2006). Reinventing grounded theory: Some questions about theory, ground and discovery, British Educational Research Journal 32 (6): 767–795.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, C. J., Rindfleisch, A. and Arsel, Z. (2006). Emotional branding and the strategic value of the Doppelgänger brand image, Journal of Marketing 70 (1): 50–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trauth, E. M. and Jessup, L. M. (2000). Understanding computer-mediated discussions: Positivist and interpretive analyses of group support system use, MIS Quarterly 24 (1): 43–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Truex, D., Holmström, 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Van Maanen, J. (ed.) (1995). An end to innocence: The ethnography of ethnography, in Representation in Ethnography, Thousand Oaks: Sage, pp. 1–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Venkatesh, V., Brown, S. A. and Bala, H. (2013). Bridging the qualitative-quantitative divide: Guidelines for conducting mixed methods research in information systems, MIS Quarterly 37 (1): 21–54.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walsham, G. and Sahay, S. (1999). GIS for district-level administration in India: Problems and opportunities, MIS Quarterly 23 (1): 39–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weber, M. (1946). Essays in Sociology, New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weber, R. (2003). Editor’s comment: Still desperately seeking the IT artifact, MIS Quarterly 27 (2): iii–xi.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in Organizations, Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weill, P. and Olson, M. H. (1989). An assessment of the contingency theory of management information systems, Journal of Management Information Systems 6 (1): 59–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wynn, D. and Williams, C. K. (2012). Principles for conducting critical realist case study research in information systems, MIS Quarterly 36 (3): 787–810.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yoo, Y., Boland, Jr R. J. and Lyytinen, K. (2006). From organization design to organization designing, Organization Science 17 (2): 215–229.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We are very grateful to Leslie Willcocks and Chris Sauer for guidance on how best to focus the paper, among other excellent advice. We are also grateful to reviewers of an earlier and very different paper for a number of very valid criticisms, which have given us important pointers towards this piece. Don Hambrick and Connie Helfat kindly responded to our emails and were very helpful and supportive and we thank our colleagues from another discipline. We also thank Frank Chan, our colleague at ESSEC, for helpful discussions. Finally we are grateful to Guy Fitzgerald, Nathalie Mitev and François-Xavier de Vaujany who commented on a chapter of Julien Malaurent’s Ph.D. thesis in 2011 which represented the end of the beginning of this voyage of discovery.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. ESSEC Business School, Paris, France

    David Avison & Julien Malaurent

Authors
  1. David Avison
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Julien Malaurent
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to David Avison.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Avison, D., Malaurent, J. Is theory king?: questioning the theory fetish in information systems. J Inf Technol 29, 327–336 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1057/jit.2014.8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/jit.2014.8

Keywords

Search

Navigation