Theory in North American Information Systems Research: A Culturomic Analysis

Since its inception, North American information systems (IS) research has relied on a broad and varied collection of theories. The core of this theoretical landscape is an important determinant of the IS research community’s identity, and, as such, researchers have discussed it extensively in recent years. Nevertheless, we know few concrete facts about the composition, consistency, or evolution of this theoretical core over time. Using a set of 318 theories in conjunction with n-gram analyses, we address these issues empirically by computationally analyzing the complete text of every research paper published in three leading North American IS journals over a 24-year period. In examining these 2,215 papers and more than 3.54 billion n-gram records, we identify the theories that constitute the overall core of North American IS research and provide insights into the evolution of that core. We further identify and quantify the nature of theoretical pluralism in North American IS research and examine the evolution of the theoretical density of IS research studies over time. Finally, our results shed light on the patterns of theory co-occurrence in North American IS research studies and demonstrate how such information can facilitate increasingly imperative efforts aimed at theory consolidation and generalization.

[1]  S. Gould,et al.  Punctuated equilibria: an alternative to phyletic gradualism , 1972 .

[2]  Kalle Lyytinen,et al.  Reach and Grasp , 2004, MIS Q..

[3]  Daniel S. Soper,et al.  An n-gram analysis of Communications 2000--2010 , 2012, Commun. ACM.

[4]  Richard Baskerville,et al.  Fashion Waves in Information Systems Research and Practice , 2009, MIS Q..

[5]  Yulin Fang,et al.  The IS Identity Crisis , 2007, Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[6]  Peter A. Todd,et al.  What are they thinking...: a view of the IS field "from the dean's office" , 2012, DATB.

[7]  J. Bohannon Digital data. Google books, Wikipedia, and the future of culturomics. , 2011, Science.

[8]  H Ford,et al.  Where have all the students gone? , 2000, British journal of perioperative nursing : the journal of the National Association of Theatre Nurses.

[9]  Mark John Somers,et al.  Using the theory of the professions to understand the IS identity crisis , 2010, Eur. J. Inf. Syst..

[10]  Mark A. Fuller,et al.  Research Standards for Promotion and Tenure in Information Systems , 2006, MIS Q..

[11]  Varun Grover,et al.  The Information Systems Field: Making a Case for Maturity and Contribution , 2012, J. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[12]  Dirk S. Hovorka,et al.  Analyzing unstructured text data: Using latent categorization to identify intellectual communities in information systems , 2008, Decis. Support Syst..

[13]  Michael F. Gorman,et al.  IS Journal Quality Assessment Using the Author Affiliation Index , 2007, Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[14]  Daniel Robey,et al.  Identity, Legitimacy and the Dominant Research Paradigm: An Alternative Prescription for the IS Discipline: A Response to Benbasat and Zmud's Call for Returning to the IT Artifact , 2003, J. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[15]  Maria-Eugenia Iacob,et al.  In Search of Paradigms : identifying the theoretical foundations of the information system field , 2010 .

[16]  Nik R Hassan,et al.  Is information systems a discipline? Foucauldian and Toulminian insights , 2011, Eur. J. Inf. Syst..

[17]  Henry C. Lucas,et al.  The information systems identity crisis , 2005 .

[18]  K. Peffers,et al.  Identifying and Evaluating the Universe of Outlets for Information Systems Research: Ranking the Journals , 2003 .

[19]  Fred D. Davis Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology , 1989, MIS Q..

[20]  Mark D. Miller,et al.  Examining differences across journal rankings , 2005, CACM.

[21]  Kalle Lyytinen,et al.  The Theoretical Core and Academic Legitimacy: A Response to Professor Weber , 2006, J. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[22]  Geoff Walsham,et al.  Are we making a better world with ICTs? Reflections on a future agenda for the IS field , 2012, J. Inf. Technol..

[23]  David Crystal,et al.  A dictionary of linguistics and phonetics , 1997 .

[24]  Sara J. Graves,et al.  Using Association Rules as Texture Features , 2001, IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell..

[25]  Gordon B. Davis,et al.  User Acceptance of Information Technology: Toward a Unified View , 2003, MIS Q..

[26]  P. Groenen,et al.  Modern Multidimensional Scaling: Theory and Applications , 1999 .

[27]  David Graham Wastell,et al.  Managing as designing: ‘opportunity knocks’ for the IS field? , 2010, Eur. J. Inf. Syst..

[28]  Neil R. Ullman,et al.  Signal-to-noise ratios, performance criteria, and transformations , 1988 .

[29]  Rudy Hirschheim,et al.  A Glorious and Not-So-Short History of the Information Systems Field , 2012, J. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[30]  Izak Benbasat,et al.  The Identity Crisis Within the IS Discipline: Defining and Communicating the Discipline's Core Properties , 2003, MIS Q..

[31]  A. Kellerman,et al.  The Constitution of Society : Outline of the Theory of Structuration , 2015 .

[32]  Ching Y. Suen,et al.  n-Gram Statistics for Natural Language Understanding and Text Processing , 1979, IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence.

[33]  T. Kuhn,et al.  The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. , 1964 .

[34]  Michael J. Ginzberg A business dean's perspective on the IS field , 2012, DATB.

[35]  I. Ajzen The theory of planned behavior , 1991 .

[36]  Samuel B. Bacharach,et al.  Organizational Theories: Some Criteria for Evaluation , 1989 .

[37]  Daniel S. Soper,et al.  Identifying Theories Used in North American IS Research: A Bottom-Up, Computational Approach , 2015, 2015 48th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.

[38]  Björn-Olav Dozo,et al.  Quantitative Analysis of Culture Using Millions of Digitized Books , 2010 .