eBook - ePub
Formulating Research Methods for Information Systems
Volume 1
Chris Sauer, Leslie P. Willcocks, Mary C. Lacity, Chris Sauer, Leslie P. Willcocks, Mary C. Lacity
This is a test
Share book
- English
- ePUB (mobile friendly)
- Available on iOS & Android
eBook - ePub
Formulating Research Methods for Information Systems
Volume 1
Chris Sauer, Leslie P. Willcocks, Mary C. Lacity, Chris Sauer, Leslie P. Willcocks, Mary C. Lacity
Book details
Book preview
Table of contents
Citations
About This Book
This edited two-volume collection presents the most interesting and compelling articles pertaining to the formulation of research methods used to study information systems from the 30-year publication history of the Journal of Information Technology.
Frequently asked questions
How do I cancel my subscription?
Can/how do I download books?
At the moment all of our mobile-responsive ePub books are available to download via the app. Most of our PDFs are also available to download and we're working on making the final remaining ones downloadable now. Learn more here.
What is the difference between the pricing plans?
Both plans give you full access to the library and all of Perlegoâs features. The only differences are the price and subscription period: With the annual plan youâll save around 30% compared to 12 months on the monthly plan.
What is Perlego?
We are an online textbook subscription service, where you can get access to an entire online library for less than the price of a single book per month. With over 1 million books across 1000+ topics, weâve got you covered! Learn more here.
Do you support text-to-speech?
Look out for the read-aloud symbol on your next book to see if you can listen to it. The read-aloud tool reads text aloud for you, highlighting the text as it is being read. You can pause it, speed it up and slow it down. Learn more here.
Is Formulating Research Methods for Information Systems an online PDF/ePUB?
Yes, you can access Formulating Research Methods for Information Systems by Chris Sauer, Leslie P. Willcocks, Mary C. Lacity, Chris Sauer, Leslie P. Willcocks, Mary C. Lacity in PDF and/or ePUB format, as well as other popular books in Business & International Business. We have over one million books available in our catalogue for you to explore.
Information
IV
The Role of Theory in Information Systems Research
8
Is theory king?: questioning the theory fetish in information systems
David Avison
ESSEC Business School, Paris, France
Julien Malaurent
ESSEC Business School, Paris, France
Reprinted from Journal of Information Technology, 29, 327â336, 2014, doi:10.1057/jit.2014.8, âIs theory king?: questioning the theory fetish in information systemsâ, by David Avison and Julien Malaurent. With kind permission from Palgrave Macmillan Ltd. All rights reserved.
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 âtheory lightâ 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.
Keywords: theory; theory light; qualitative research; journals; author; editor; reader
Motivation
This paper questions the role of theory in qualitative research in information systems. At present theory has a very high status. In an MIS Quarterly editorial commentary1 on what makes a paper accepted in a leading journal, Straub (2009: vi) argues that âTheory is Kingâ (original capitalization). He continues that a ârequired elementâ for any excellent paper is that it âsufficiently uses or develops theory.â The highly rated Journal of the AIS has held a workshop at the International Conference on Information Systems each year since 2002 where âtheory developmentâ has been the consistent theme. The workshop âpromotes scholarship that focuses on new theoretical advances in the information systems fieldâ (JAIS, 2012). This consistent theme of the JAIS workshops would seem to concur with the view that âTheory is King.â Again, Gregor (2006: 613) argues: âDeveloping theory is what we are meant to do as academic researchers and it sets us apart from practitioners and consultants.â
As we shall see in the next section, we have six inter-related concerns about this pre-eminence of theory in qualitative papers in IS. Of course we are not âagainstâ theory in our research papers, rather its pre-eminence, and because of that, the potential of researchers to fall into the traps expressed in our six concerns. As co-founding editor of the Information Systems Journal, the first author suggests that a paper expressing new and exciting ideas is not only at least equally deserving of such monarchic status as theory but also devilishly difficult to achieve and somewhat rare in our leading journals. We ask readers to look at all the papers published in our leading journals (which we define as the eight journals in the senior scholarsâ basket of leading research journals (AIS, 2014)) over a period of, say, one year. How many of these papers do you find truly original, challenging and excite you? We fear that the response might be ânot many.â In our view papers in our leading journals should have that impact.
Why then has theory gained this pre-eminent status in IS research journals? One explanation is related to the several yearsâ discussion about the status of the discipline as a whole. King and Lyytinen (2006) provide excellent source material on this discussion in its most recent form sparked off by Benbasat and Zmud (2003). The title of Orlikowski and Iacono (2001) Desperately Seeking the âITâ in IT Research: A Call to Theorizing the IT Artifact (discussed most recently in Akhlaghpour et al., 2013) not only suggests limiting IS research to rather a narrow field but the âdesperate searchâ seems to apply to the need to theorize in order to enhance the status of the discipline. Ron Weber perhaps expresses this âdesperationâ best in his MIS Quarterly editorial (Weber, 2003) where he compares IS with his academic training: âIn the information systems discipline, I searched in vain for the powerful, general theories that underpinned research in disciplines like physics and economics.â
It seems that the drive for theory has been seen as the way forward to make information systems an âacceptableâ discipline, particularly with it suffering a âcrisis,â at least judged by the titles of papers such as that of Benbasat and Zmud (2003). Thankfully, many of the responses to that paper have been more positive such as Agarwal and Lucas (2005) who argue that âthe IS community has a powerful story to tell about the transformational impact of information technologyâ (p. 381). As we discuss below, this is a concern discussed in other disciplines as well as IS.
An interesting aside, and following on from Ron Weberâs comment above, is that the first author of this paper was trained in the discipline of economics in the mid-1960s and remembers similar kinds of debates in that field: âIs economics a science?â âIs it a social science?â âIs it a quantitative or qualitative?â and so on. At that time it was developing into an exciting and broad discipline with many points of view and many contributions (rather like IS). It was also influenced by many theories (I was trained in particular by a Marxist professor of economics). As I expressed in Avison (2012), economics has become much more one-dimensional since those exciting times and is much poorer as a result. The history of the discipline of economics is a warning to us and not a model to follow.
Finally, with regard to motivation, the first-named author in this paper has himself been complicit in this emphasis on theory when editing the Information Systems Journal. I would also claim that I have made contributions to theory building myself, for example in my work with Trevor Wood-Harper (Avison and Wood-Harper, 1990) developing the Multiview framework for information systems development using action research (Avison et al., 1999). Further we do not have any personal animosities with any IS colleague, certainly not those cited in this paper. But we feel the emphasis on theory has gone too far and we wish to argue a contrary viewpoint. As an editor I was also concerned about the possibility of âacceptance by stealth,â that is papers that had all the ânecessaryâ ingredients (including theory) and referees had difficulties rejecting them, yet the paper itself was basically dull, made minimal real contribution and would make very little, if any, impact on the community. We fear that many of these papers are still being published.
Before looking at our six concerns that relate to the high status of theory in information systems papers, it should be made clear that this is not the ârigor versus relevanceâ debate, see for example, Applegate and King (1999) and Straub and Ang (2011) in another form. We contend that theoretical and non-theoretical papers can be rigorous (with others of both types not rigorous) and theoretical and non-theoretical papers relevant (with papers of both types not relevant). The title of Van de Venâs (1989) paper âNothing is quite so practical as a good theory,â taken from Lewin (1945), would suggest that theoretical papers can also be relevant. Van de Ven argues (p. 36) that âGood theory is practical precisely because it advances knowledge in a scientific discipline, guides research towards crucial questions, and enlightens the profession of management.â Further, as Eisenhardt (1989) has shown, it is possible to build and evaluate theory from qualitative case study research. However, in this paper we will discuss how papers that do not stress theoretical contributions may be rigorous as well as relevant, and thereby make an important contribution to IS research and practice.
Six concerns regarding the emphasis on theory in IS research
In this section we discuss six inter-related concerns about this pre-eminence of theory in our papers.
1.The temptation to revert to âideal typesâ in our understanding process: One basis for concern is that researchers might oversimplify their data to look like an âideal typeâ data set. Researchers need to âtell a storyâ and conforming to an ideal type will help the researcherâs ability to gain the readersâ understanding as they try to make sense of the data. The restrictions of word count, appealing to the general-interested reader (not just experts in that branch of the field) and gaining the acceptance of referees, cannot help but tempt the author to simplify their empirical data sets. Ideal types are ones with which there is some familiarity to give the new data a familiar context for understanding. However, as Weber (1946: 88) argues, âan ideal type is formed by the one-sided accentuation of one or more points of view according to which concrete individual phenomena are arranged into a unified analytical construct in its purely fictional nature. It is a methodological utopia [that] cannot be found empirically anywhere in reality.â It might be argued that we need to form these exaggerated depictions âto seeâ things, patterns and relationships, but we live in a complex world and in our view we need to study this complexity to truly understand phenomena. There is a temptation to include only those parts of the data that conform to a particular theoretical framework rather than trying to see the data as a whole and understand it holistically. These ideal types may miss part of the organizational complexity that might otherwise lead to valuable insights. One solution might seem to be to write another paper discussing another slice, and this might seem good for an academic career. But âthe whole is greater than the sum of the partsâ and the potential contribution of a holistic piece much greater. Of course it is never possible to fully understand the world, but simplifying to fit into an ideal type might be too reductionist. Such simplification reduces the potential contribution of information systems research to the community.
2.Distortion of our understanding of the research setting: Related to the first concern, and following an interpretivist stance (Walsham, 1995), it is commonly accepted that the paradigms and theories to which we are exposed not only guide analysis and interpretation processes but also our perception of the empirical field as a whole (Gregor, 2006). The theoretical frameworks from which a social scientist is sympathetic have an influence on the future orientations of a research project, the questions asked in the field, and the stance adopted for data collection (Alvesson and Sköldberg, 2009). Empirical researchers are socially, culturally and historically exposed (Giddens, 1984), and thus choice of theory has an influence on the way research is carried out, as we are all reflexive agents (Jones and Karsten, 2008). As Walsham (1995: 76) puts it âthere is a danger of the researcher only seeing what the theory suggests, and thus using the theory in a rigid way which stifles potential new issues and avenues of exploration. It is desirable in interpretive studies to preserve a considerable degree of openness to the field data, and a willingness to modify initial assumptions and theories.â Following this argument, it is conceivable to expect that some dimensions of the research field might be neglected, ignored or reduced inappropriately as the theoretical and worldview influences to which we are exposed condition our orientations to carry out research (Weick, 1989).
3.Assessing the fit of a theory: Researchers usually acquire a good knowledge of both research methods and theory in their doctoral studies. However, even though doctoral programs help researchers to build solid foundations for knowledge, expertise and self-awareness (Klein and Rowe, 2008), there is no ârecipeâ to choose, guide and evaluate the fit of a theoretical framework to empirical data collected. Truex et al. (2006) and Straub (2012: iv-v) discuss the theory definition and theory creation processes, as do DiMaggio (1995), Sutton and Staw (1995), Van de Ven (1989), Weick (1989, 1995) and Whetten (1989) outside IS, but there are too few reflective accounts (but see Pozzebon and Pinsonneault, 2005) addressing how any potential gap between theory and data can be addressed. Again, to âtell a good storyâ the temptation might be to choose data that fits. In our view this is not only ethically unsound, it is to the detriment of the discipline as it is just those data that do not fit the theory that might signal further research and potentially provide a much greater contribution. But editors and reviewers may be left unsatisfied with the unresolved issues and decide not to publish.
4.The applicability of âborrowedâ theories: We also question the direct applicability of some theories from other disciplines to IS research. Borrowing theories from other disciplines may well be appropriate (Orlikowski and Barley, 2001) as our discipline is at the cornerstone of different fields (Avison and Myers, 1995). However, sometimes âthe shoes do not fitâ (Miller, 2007). Truex et al. (2006) suggest general reasons why this might apply. Some examples of these difficulties have been discussed in the literature. For example, Pozzebon and Pinsonneault (2005) discuss difficulties of empirical applicability in the context of structuration theory; Mitev (2009) discusses actor network theory in a similar vein; and Lacity et al. (2011) discuss the inappro...