Social Theory in IS Research: Some Recommendations for Informed Adaptation of Social Theories in IS Research

In this paper we consider what it means to be an informed IS researcher. In doing this, we have focused our attention to the selection and use of social theories in IS research, and we have asked ourselves “how should one choose the theory which will guide any given piece of research?” We see this as an important question to reflect upon, given the extensive use of and debate about the efficacy of various social theories in IS research during the last few decades. After discussing some of the problems and opportunities related to the use of social theories, we argue for an ‘informed eclecticism’ in the adaptation of social theories. With informed ecleticism we mean that while we welcome diversity in theories and recognize this as much needed in our field, we also argue for a certain awareness guiding theory selection and use. For this purpose, the paper ends with four recommendations for theory selection and use: (1) consider the selected theory’s historical context, (2) consider the selected theory‘s sensitivity towards details of the phenomenon under study, (3), consider how the selected theory impacts the choice of research method, (4) consider the theorizing process’ contribution to cumulative theory.

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

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

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

[4]  A. Giddens.  Central Problems in Social Theory: Action, Structure and Contradiction in Social Analysis , 1979 .

[5]  Jan Weglarz,et al.  Interpreting Information Systems in Organizations , 1993 .

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

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

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

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

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

[11]  K. Weick.  What Theory Is Not, Theorizing Is , 1995 .

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

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

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

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

[16]  R. Kling.  Computerization and Social Transformations , 1991 .

[17]  K. Lyytinen,et al.  Exploring the intellectual structures of information systems development: A social action theoretic analysis , 1996 .

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

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

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

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

[22]  K. Weick.  Theory Construction as Disciplined Imagination , 1989 .

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

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

[25]  S. Barley.  Technology as an occasion for structuring: evidence from observations of CT scanners and the social order of radiology departments. , 1986, Administrative science quarterly.

[26]  Jeremy Rose,et al.  Machine Agency as Perceived Autonomy: An Action Perspective , 2000, Organizational and Social Perspectives on IT.

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