Theorizing in information systems research: A reflexive analysis of the adaptation of theory in information systems research

In this paper we consider what it means to be an informed IS researcher by focusing attention on theory adaptation in IS research. The basic question we seek to address is: “When one borrows theory from another discipline, what are the issues that one must consider?” After examining the role of theory in IS research, we focus on escalation theory applied to IS projects as an example. In doing so, we seek to generate increased awareness of the issues that one might consider when adapting theories from other domains to research in our field. This increased awareness may then translate to a more informed use of theories in IS. Following a self-reflexive tale of how and why escalation theory was adopted to IS research, we offer four recommendations for theory adaptation: (1) consider the fit between selected theory and phenomenon of interest, (2) consider the theory’s historical context, (3) consider how the theory impacts the choice of research method, and (4) consider the contribution of theorizing to cumulative theory.

[1]  Barry M. Staw,et al.  Behavior in escalation situations: Antecedents, prototypes, and solutions. , 1987 .

[2]  Detmar W. Straub,et al.  Validation in Information Systems Research: A State-of-the-Art Assessment , 2001, MIS Q..

[3]  R. T. Vidgen,et al.  Information Systems Development , 1995 .

[4]  Paul C. Godfrey,et al.  Identity in organizations : building theory through conversations , 2000 .

[5]  Ramiro Montealegre,et al.  Trojan actor-networks and swift translation: Bringing actor-network theory to IT project escalation studies , 2004, Inf. Technol. People.

[6]  Jeremy Rose,et al.  The Problem of Agency Re-visited , 2005, Scand. J. Inf. Syst..

[7]  Mark Keil,et al.  Pulling the Plug: Software Project Management and the Problem of Project Escalation , 1995, MIS Q..

[8]  Maurice Landry,et al.  Can the field of MIS be disciplined? , 1989, CACM.

[9]  Jeremy Rose,et al.  Socio-Theoretic Accounts of IS: The Problem of Agency , 2005, Scand. J. Inf. Syst..

[10]  Mark Keil,et al.  Why Software Projects Escalate: An Empirical Analysis and Test of Four Theoretical Models , 2000, MIS Q..

[11]  Izak Benbasat,et al.  Research Commentary: Rethinking "Diversity" in Information Systems Research , 1996, Inf. Syst. Res..

[12]  Lynette Kvasny.  Problematizing the digital divide : cultural and social reproduction in a community technology initiative , 2002 .

[13]  Rajiv Sabherwal,et al.  Escalating commitment to information system projects: findings from two simulated experiments , 2003, Inf. Manag..

[14]  Amrit Tiwana,et al.  Information Systems Project Continuation in Escalation Situations: A Real Options Model , 2006, Decis. Sci..

[15]  Matthew Jones,et al.  The Moving Finger: The Use of Social Theory in WG 8.2 Conference Papers, 1975-1999 , 2000, Organizational and Social Perspectives on IT.

[16]  Detmar W. Straub,et al.  Normative standards for IS research , 1994, DATB.

[17]  H. Garland.  Throwing Good Money After Bad: The Effect of Sunk Costs on the Decision to Escalate Commitment to an Ongoing Project , 1990 .

[18]  M. Keil,et al.  The effects of sunk cost and project completion on information technology project escalation , 1995 .

[19]  Sirkka L. Jarvenpaa,et al.  Computer support of groups: theory-based models for GDSS research , 1991 .

[20]  Aubrey L. Mendelow,et al.  Real Options as Engines of Choice and Heterogeneity , 2004 .

[21]  Jonny Holmström,et al.  Drifting technologies and multi-purpose networks: the case of the Swedish cashcard , 2001, Inf. Organ..

[22]  Robert W. Zmud,et al.  Research on the Organization of End‐User Computing: Theoretical Perspectives From Organizational Science , 1992 .

[23]  Wanda J. Orlikowski,et al.  Studying Information Technology in Organizations: Research Approaches and Assumptions , 1991, Inf. Syst. Res..

[24]  Jeremy Rose,et al.  The Problem of Agency; How Humans Act, How Machines Act , 2003 .

[25]  S. Deetz.  Crossroads---Describing Differences in Approaches to Organization Science: Rethinking Burrell and Morgan and Their Legacy , 1996 .

[26]  Guy Fitzgerald,et al.  Research methods in information systems , 1985 .

[27]  Dennis F. Galletta,et al.  Mis research directions: a survey of researchers' views , 1991, DATB.

[28]  Wiebe E. Bijker,et al.  Science in action : how to follow scientists and engineers through society , 1989 .

[29]  Alison Sealey,et al.  Language, structure and agency: What can realist social theory offer to sociolinguistics? , 2000 .

[30]  Eileen M. Trauth,et al.  The choice of qualitative methods in IS research , 2001 .

[31]  Jan Damsgaard,et al.  Binary trading relations and the limits of EDI standards: the Procrustean bed of standards , 2000, Eur. J. Inf. Syst..

[32]  R. Yin.  Case Study Research: Design and Methods , 1984 .

[33]  Kalle Lyytinen,et al.  THE POVERTY OF SCIENTISM IN INFORMATION SYSTEMS , 2000 .

[34]  Jeremy Rose,et al.  Structuration Theory, Action Research, and Information Systems Development , 2001 .

[35]  Richard Baskerville,et al.  Information Systems as a Reference Discipline , 2002, MIS Q..

[36]  Bernard C. Y. Tan,et al.  A Cross-Cultural Study on Escalation of Commitment Behavior in Software Projects , 2000, MIS Q..

[37]  Mark Keil,et al.  Blowing the whistle on troubled software projects , 2001, CACM.

[38]  Shirley Gregor,et al.  The Nature of Theory in Information Systems , 2006, MIS Q..

[39]  Allen S. Lee.  Rigor and relevance in MIS research: beyond the approach of positivism alone , 1999 .

[40]  Wanda J. Orlikowski,et al.  Information Technology and the Structuring of Organizations , 2011 .

[41]  Karl E. Weick,et al.  Organized Improvisation: 20 Years of Organizing. , 1989 .

[42]  劉秋菊,et al.  Actor-Network Theory and IS research: current status and future prospects , 2007 .

[43]  M. Keil,et al.  Information systems project escalation: a reinterpretation based on options theory , 1999 .

[44]  Lynette Kvasny,et al.  Defining Away the Digital Divide: A Content Analysis of Institutional Influences on Popular Representations of Technology , 2001, Realigning Research and Practice in Information Systems Development.

[45]  Michael D. Myers,et al.  A Set of Principles for Conducting and Evaluating Interpretive Field Studies in Information Systems , 1999, MIS Q..

[46]  Mark Keil,et al.  Keeping Mum as the Project Goes Under: Toward an Explanatory Model , 2001, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[47]  Daniel Robey,et al.  Research Commentary: Diversity in Information Systems Research: Threat, Promise, and Responsibility , 1996, Inf. Syst. Res..

[48]  Mark Keil,et al.  Why software projects escalate: the importance of project management constructs , 2003, IEEE Trans. Engineering Management.

[49]  Varun Grover,et al.  Research in MIS—points of work and reference: a replication and extension of the Culnan and Swanson study , 1992, DATB.

[50]  Rudy Hirschheim,et al.  Four paradigms of information systems development , 1989, CACM.

[51]  J. Brockner.  The Escalation of Commitment to a Failing Course of Action: Toward Theoretical Progress , 1992 .

[52]  S. Barley,et al.  Design and devotion: Surges of rational and normative ideologies of control in managerial discourse. , 1992 .

[53]  A. Adam.  Whatever happened to information systems ethics? Caught between the devil and the deep blue sea , 2004 .

[54]  Richard Baskerville,et al.  The Debate in Structural Linguistics: how it may impact the information systems field , 1997 .

[55]  Maryam Alavi,et al.  The ecology of MIS research: a twenty year status review , 1989, ICIS '89.

[56]  Ramiro Montealegre,et al.  De-escalating Information Technology Projects: Lessons from the Denver International Airport , 2000, MIS Q..

[57]  R. Zmud,et al.  Editor's Comments Research in Information Systems: What We Haven't Learned , 2022 .

[58]  Ramiro Montealegre,et al.  Reporting bad news about software projects: impact of organizational climate and information asymmetry in an individualistic and a collectivistic culture , 2003, IEEE Trans. Engineering Management.

[59]  J. Scott Armstrong,et al.  Escalation bias: Does it extend to marketing? , 1993 .

[60]  Mark Keil,et al.  Turning Around Troubled Software Projects: An Exploratory Study of the Deescalation of Commitment to Failing Courses of Action , 1999, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[61]  Eleanor Wynn,et al.  Panel 20 The Merits of Three Qualitative Research Methods , 1996, ICIS.

[62]  Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini,et al.  Language and Learning: The Debate Between Jean Piaget and Noam Chomsky , 1980 .

[63]  Alan E. Singer,et al.  Is There Always Escalation of Commitment? , 1985 .

[64]  Barry M. Staw,et al.  Knee-deep in the Big Muddy: A study of escalating commitment to a chosen course of action. , 1976 .

[65]  Lawrence B. Mohr,et al.  Explaining organizational behavior , 1982 .

[66]  Asghar Zardkoohi,et al.  Do Real Options Lead to Escalation of Commitment , 2004 .

[67]  A. Teger,et al.  Too Much Invested to Quit , 1980 .

[68]  Barry M. Staw,et al.  What Theory is Not , 1995 .

[69]  Cheng-Suang Heng,et al.  De-escalation of commitment in software projects: Who matters? What matters? , 2003, Inf. Manag..

[70]  Richard Baskerville,et al.  Deep structure or emergence theory: contrasting theoretical foundations for information systems development , 1998, Inf. Syst. J..

[71]  Rajiv Sabherwal,et al.  Determinants of Commitment to Information Systems Development: A Longitudinal Investigation , 1996, MIS Q..

[72]  Peter G. W. Keen,et al.  Mis Research: Reference disciplines and a Cumulative Tradition , 1980, ICIS.

[73]  M. D. Myers,et al.  Critical ethnography in information systems , 1997 .

[74]  N. Britten,et al.  Using Reflexivity to Optimize Teamwork in Qualitative Research , 1999, Qualitative health research.

[75]  Timo Saarinen,et al.  Understanding Runaway Information Technology Projects: Results from an International Research Program Based on Escalation Theory , 1994, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..