Taxonomy Research in Information Systems: a Systematic Assessment

Today’s world is changing at unprecedent speed and scale becoming more complex to understand. Taxonomies represent an important tool for understanding and analyzing complex domains based on the classification of objects. In the Information Systems (IS) domain, Nickerson et al. (2013) were the first to propose a taxonomy development method, addressing the observation that many taxonomies have been developed in an ‘ad-hoc’ approach. More than five years after Nickerson et al.’s (2013) publication, we examined to what extent recently published taxonomy articles account for existing methodological guidance. Therefore, we identified and reviewed 33 taxonomy articles published between 2013 and 2018 in leading Information Systems journals. Our results were sobering: We found few taxonomy articles that followed any specific development method. Although most articles correctly understood taxonomies as conceptually or empirically derived groupings of dimensions and characteristics, our study revealed that the development process often remained opaque and that taxonomies were hardly evaluated. We discuss these findings and potential root causes related to method design, method adoption, and the general positioning of taxonomy research in the IS domain. Our study proposes stimulating questions for future research and contributes to the IS community’s progress towards methodologically well-founded taxonomies.

[1]  Nina Oertel Taxonomy development in information systems: Developing a taxonomy of mobile applications , 2009 .

[2]  William H. Glick,et al.  Typologies As a Unique Form Of Theory Building: Toward Improved Understanding and Modeling , 1994 .

[3]  Sheri Berman Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences , 2007, Perspectives on Politics.

[4]  Upkar Varshney,et al.  Mobile health: Four emerging themes of research , 2014, Decis. Support Syst..

[5]  Nicholas Berente,et al.  Innovation among different classes of software development organizations , 2018, Inf. Syst. J..

[6]  Liette Lapointe,et al.  Appendix C : The Interview Guide Liability to IT addiction , 2016 .

[7]  W. Alec Cram,et al.  Controlling information systems development: a new typology for an evolving field , 2013, Inf. Syst. J..

[8]  Alain Pinsonneault,et al.  The many faces of information technology interruptions: a taxonomy and preliminary investigation of their performance effects , 2015, Inf. Syst. J..

[9]  Ulrich Remus,et al.  To coerce or to enable? Exercising formal control in a large information systems project , 2015, J. Inf. Technol..

[10]  Chee-Wee Tan,et al.  Disentangling Digital Platform Competition: The Case of UK Mobile Payment Platforms , 2018, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[11]  Richard T. Watson,et al.  Analyzing the Past to Prepare for the Future: Writing a Literature Review , 2002, MIS Q..

[12]  MendesEmilia,et al.  Taxonomies in software engineering , 2017 .

[13]  Jan Muntermann,et al.  A method for taxonomy development and its application in information systems , 2013, Eur. J. Inf. Syst..

[14]  Wynne W. Chin,et al.  Understanding frameworks and reviews: a commentary to assist us in moving our field forward by analyzing our past , 2007, DATB.

[15]  Björn Niehaves,et al.  Standing on the Shoulders of Giants: Challenges and Recommendations of Literature Search in Information Systems Research , 2015, Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

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

[17]  Bin Xie,et al.  Network relations and boundary spanning: understanding the evolution of e-ordering in the Chinese drug distribution industry , 2014, J. Inf. Technol..

[18]  Emilia Mendes,et al.  Taxonomies in software engineering: A Systematic mapping study and a revised taxonomy development method , 2017, Inf. Softw. Technol..

[19]  Alan R. Hevner,et al.  POSITIONING AND PRESENTING DESIGN SCIENCE RESEARCH FOR MAXIMUM IMPACT 1 , 2013 .

[20]  Frantz Rowe,et al.  Being critical is good, but better with philosophy! From digital transformation and values to the future of IS research , 2018, Eur. J. Inf. Syst..

[21]  Sherae L. Daniel,et al.  Sourcing knowledge in open source software projects: The impacts of internal and external social capital on project success , 2018, J. Strateg. Inf. Syst..

[22]  Ola Henfridsson,et al.  A paradigmatic analysis of digital application marketplaces , 2015, J. Inf. Technol..

[23]  Niles Eldredge,et al.  Phylogenetic Patterns and the Evolutionary Process. , 1981 .

[24]  Michael Rosemann,et al.  Conceptualizing business-to-thing interactions – A sociomaterial perspective on the Internet of Things , 2017, Eur. J. Inf. Syst..

[25]  Christopher J. Davis,et al.  User response to mandatory IT use: a Coping Theory perspective , 2018, Eur. J. Inf. Syst..

[26]  Robert E. Crossler,et al.  Taking stock of organisations’ protection of privacy: categorising and assessing threats to personally identifiable information in the USA , 2017, Eur. J. Inf. Syst..

[27]  Wolfgang Ketter,et al.  Exploring Bidder Heterogeneity in Multichannel Sequential B2B Auctions , 2016, MIS Q..

[28]  Torsten Eymann,et al.  Digitalization: Opportunity and Challenge for the Business and Information Systems Engineering Community , 2017, Business & Information Systems Engineering.

[29]  Leyland F. Pitt,et al.  Mobility at Work - A Typology of Mobile Communities of Practice and Contextual Ambidexterity , 2013, J. Strateg. Inf. Syst..

[30]  Angelika Zimmermann,et al.  Vicious and virtuous circles of offshoring attitudes and relational behaviours. A configurational study of German IT developers , 2013, Inf. Syst. J..

[31]  Mary Lacity,et al.  Conflict resolution in business services outsourcing relationships , 2017, J. Strateg. Inf. Syst..

[32]  Guy Paré,et al.  A systematic assessment of rigor in information systems ranking-type Delphi studies , 2013, Inf. Manag..

[33]  Ping Zhang,et al.  The Affective Response Model: A Theoretical Framework of Affective Concepts and Their Relationships in the ICT Context , 2013, MIS Q..

[34]  Juhani Iivari,et al.  A Paradigmatic Analysis of Information Systems As a Design Science , 2007, Scand. J. Inf. Syst..

[35]  Tom L. Roberts,et al.  Insiders' Protection of Organizational Information Assets: Development of a Systematics-Based Taxonomy and Theory of Diversity for Protection-Motivated Behaviors , 2013, MIS Q..

[36]  William J. Kettinger,et al.  Established Companies' Strategic Responses to Sharing Economy Threats , 2018, MIS Q. Executive.

[37]  Jacky Akoka,et al.  A Taxonomy of Evaluation Methods for Information Systems Artifacts , 2015, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[38]  Tony Cornford,et al.  Unravelling causal and temporal influences underpinning monitoring systems success: A typological approach , 2018, Inf. Syst. J..

[39]  Kenneth D. Bailey,et al.  Typologies And Taxonomies , 1994 .

[40]  Peter Gomber,et al.  A taxonomy of financial market manipulations: establishing trust and market integrity in the financialized economy through automated fraud detection , 2017, J. Inf. Technol..

[41]  Stephan Berger,et al.  The Nature of Digital Technologies - Development of a Multi-Layer Taxonomy , 2018, ECIS.

[42]  Radhika Santhanam,et al.  Toward Meaningful Engagement: A Framework for Design and Research of Gamified Information Systems , 2017, MIS Q..

[43]  Juergen Jasperneite,et al.  The Future of Industrial Communication: Automation Networks in the Era of the Internet of Things and Industry 4.0 , 2017, IEEE Industrial Electronics Magazine.

[44]  Salvatore T. March,et al.  Design and natural science research on information technology , 1995, Decis. Support Syst..

[45]  Sussy Bayona Oré,et al.  Critical success factors taxonomy for software process deployment , 2012, Software Quality Journal.